fUwmiig  afi  €alif<»jrti»+ 


No 

Division 
Range 

Shelf. 

Received 


T> 


i8< 


!?]  PRESENTED  TO  THPJ  % 

;|  Library  of  the  University  of  California,  ;*; 


'   V      i  VVVs4 


v 


fit  i|e  Sfoiiei  Slates  District  (fart, 

NORTHERN  DISTRICT  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


THE  UNITED  STATES  \ 

vs.  ,.  421 

ANDRES  CASTILLERO. 


"NEW  ALMADEN." 


TRANSCRIPT  OF  THE  RECORD. 


P.  DELLA  TORRE,  Esq.,  U.  S.  Attorney. 
EDMUND  RANDOLPH,  Esq.,  of  Counsel. 


A.  C.  PEACHY,  Esq. 

„.._  y  foe  Claimant. 

FRED'K  BILLINGS, 


SAN    FKANCISCO 
1859. 


INDEX 


PROCEEDINGS  BEFORE  LAND  COMMISSION. 

Page. 

Index  to  Proceedings 3 

Petition  of  Andres  Castillero ; 5 

Exhibit  A. — Pico  Act  of  Possession 73 

Exhibit  B. — Translation  of  Exhibit  A. .  * 75 

Exhibit  C. — Expediente  of   approval  of  Mining  Possession 

and  Grant 34 

Exhibit  D.— Translation  of  Exhibit  C 49 

Exhibit  E. — Castillo  Lanzas  to  the  Governor  of  California. .  65 

Exhibit  F.— Translation  of  Exhibit  E 67 

Exhibit  G. — Lyman's  Notes  of  Survey 80 

Exhibit  H. — Plat  of  Survey.     (Separate.) 

Deposition  of  Fernando  Alden 8 

Deposition  of  Chester  S.  Lyman 11 

Affidavit  of  William  E.  Barron 13 

Deposition  of  Jose  Maria  Lafragua 15 

Exhibit  A.— (See  Exhibit  C.  to  Petition) 34 

Exhibit  B.— Marginal  Decree  of  May  20,  1846 63 

Translation  of  Exhibit  B 64 

Exhibit  C— (See  Exhibit  E.  to  Petition) *. .  65 

Exhibit  D. — Lafragua's  Report 69 

Translation  of  Exhibit  D M 

Deposition  of  Jose  Noriega 2- 

Deposition  of  Antonio  Sunol   £4 

Exhibit  A.— (See  Exhibit  A.  to  Petition) 

Deposition  of  Frank  Lewis -  ' 

Deposition  of  Domingo  Danglada *8 

Deposition  of  Francisco  de  Leon ^ 

Deposition  of  Jose  Fernandez 

Opinion  of  the  Board,  by  Commissioner  Felch •  •  •  81 

Dissenting  Opinion  by  Commissioner  Thompson 10J 


MM 


1    J  * 

4 

Page. 

Decree  of  the  Board 129 

'Order  to  make  Transcripts 129 

Secretary's  Certificate  to  Transcript 1 29 

PROCEEDINGS  BEFORE  DISTRICT  COURT. 

Notice  of  Appeal  by  Claimant 131 

Notice  of  Appeal  by  Attorney-General 132 

Petition  for  Review  by  the  United  States 132 

Deposition  of  Francisco  Villegass 133 

Deposition  of  John  P.  Brodie 135 

Petition  for  Review  by  Claimant 140 

Answer  of  Claimant 142 

Notice  to  Claimant  to  produce  Papers 142 

Deposition  of  George  M.  Yoel 144 

Exhibit  G.  M.  Y. — Concession  by  Weekes 147 

Translation  of  Exhibit  G.  M.  Y 805 

Exhibit   H.  L.   No.    1. — Deed  :   Josd    Castro    to   Alexander 

Forbes 151 

Translation  of  Exhibit  H.  L.  No.  1 492 

Exhibit  II.  L.  No.  2.— Deed  :   Castillero  to  Alexander  Forbes  149 

Translation  of  Exhibit  H.  L.  No.  2 , 507 

Deposition  of  James  W.  Weekes 165 

Exhibit  J.  W.  W. — Forbes'  Petition  to  Weekes 168 

Translation  of  Exhibit  J.  W.  W 806 

Deposition  of  Antonio  Maria  Pico 169 

Notice  to  Claimant  to  produce  Papers 198 

Deposition  of  George  M.  Yoell 252 

Exhibit  R.  No.  1. — Pico  Act  of  Possession 257 

Translation  of  Exhibit  R.  No.  1 794 

Deposition  of  II.  C.  Melone 260 

Exhibit  R.  No.  3.— Petition  :  Walkinshaw  v.  Forbes 272 

Exhibit  R.  No.  4. — Citation  :  Walkinshaw  v.  Forbes 273 

hibit  Et.  No.  5.— Bond  :   Walkinshaw  v.  Forbes 274 

Exhibit  R.  No.  6.— Notice  :  Walkinshaw  v.  Forbes 275 

Exhibit  R.  Xo.  7.— Affidavit:   Walkinshaw   v.  Forbes 275 

Exhibit  R.  Xo.  8. — Petition  and  accompanying  Documents : 

Forbes  to  Chief  Justice 278 

Exhibit  R.  Xo.  9.— Concession  by  Weekes.     (See  Exhibit  G. 

M.    Y.  p.  147) : 286 

I  ranslation  of  Exhibit  R.  No.  9 802 

Exhibits  II.  JI.  Nos.  1  to  13.— Proceedings  in  denouncement 

of  New  Almaden  Mine  by  Horace  Ilawes 287 


5 

Page. 

Notice  to  Claimant  to  produce  Papers * 305 

Deposition  of  James  W.  Weekes 305 

Exhibit  R.  No.  2. — Pico  Act  of  Possession 311 

Translation  of  Exhibit  R.  No.  2 797 

Deposition  of  Frank  Lewis 316 

Notice  of  Motion  for  leave  to  recall  Antonio  Sufiol  and  Jose  Nori- 
ega   ! 320 

Order  to  recall  Sufiol  and  Noriega 320 

Deposition  of  S.  0.  Houghton 321 

Deposition  of  H.  W.  Halleck. 325 

Deposition  of  Benjamin  Davidson 375 

Exhibits  F.  Nos.  1  to  27. — Produced  from  a  box  in  custody 
of  Witness.     (See  Exhibits  O.  H.  attached  to  Deposition 

of  J.  A.  Forbes,  p.  433) 382 

Deposition  of  Henry  Laurencel 376 

Deposition  of  G.  W.  P.  Bissel 380 

Deposition  of  Antonio  Sufiol 409 

Deposition  of  Jose  Noriega 418 

Order  to  make  Copies 423 

Deposition  of  Captain  John  Paty 424 

Exhibit  J.  P.  No.  1. — Memorandum 429 

Exhibit  J.  P.  No.  2.— Letter  to  T.  O.  Larkin 431 

•Exhibit  J.  P.  No.  3.— Receipt  for  Letters 431 

Exhibit  J.  P.  No.  4.— Certificate  of  Captain  of  trie  Port  of 

Acapulco 432 

Exhibit  J.  P.  No.  5.— Certificate  of  C.  Horn 433 

Deposition  of  James  Alex.  Forbes 433 

Exhibit  O.  H.  No.  1.— Letter :  Barron,  Forbes  &  Co.  to  J.  A. 

Forbes,  May  20,  1849 •  390 

Exhibit  0.  H.  No.  2.— Memorandum  of  Documents,  May  '27, 

igiQ  391 

Exhibit  0.*H.  No.  3.— Letter:  L  A.  Forbes  to  Wm.  Forbes, 

Oct.-  28,  1849 •••;••  392 

Exhibit  0.  H.  No.  4.— Letter:  J.  A.  Forbes  to  Alex.  Forbes, 

Oct.  30,  1849 ■•••'•••.•;•  393 

Exhibit  0.  H.  No.  5.— Letter:  Barron,  Forbes  &  Co. to  J.  A. 

Forbes,  Nov.  30,  1849 •  ••••  •  •  ■  394 

Exhibit  O.  H.  No.  6.— Letter :  Alex.  Forbes  to  Jas.  Alex. 

Forbes,  Nov.  30,  1849 v •;•■  395 

Exhibit  O.  H.  No.  7— Letter :  Alex.  Forbes  to  Jas.  Alex. 

Forbes,  Dec  1,  1849 r'"\\"  396 

Exhibit  O.  H.  No.  8.— Letter  :  Alex.   Forbes  to  Jas.   Alex. 

Forbes,  Jan.  7,  1850 39' 


6 

Page. 

Exhibit  0.  II.  No.  84-.— Letter  :  Alex.  Forbes  to  Jas.  Alex. 

Forbes,  Feb.  3,  1850 ...   400 

Exhibit  O.  H.  No.  9. — Letter :   Jas.   Alex.  Forbes  to  Alex. 

Forbes,  Feb.  26,  1850 403 

Exhibit  O.  H.  No.  10.— Letter:  Barron,  Forbes  &  Co.,  to 

J.  A.  Forbes,  March  2,  1850 404 

Exhibit  O.  H.  No.  11. — Letter:  Alex.  Forbes  to  Jas.  Alex. 

.   Forbes,  March  11,  1850 404 

Exhibit  O.  H.  No.  12. — Letter:  Alex.  Forbes  to  Jas.  Alex. 

Forbes,  April  7,  1850 405 

Exhibit  O.  H.  No.  13. — Letter:  Alex.  Forbes  to  Jas.  Alex. 

Forbes,  June  6,  1850 406 

Exhibit  O.  H.  No.  14. — Letter:  Jas.  Alex.  Forbes  to  Alex. 

Forbes,  Jan.  29,  1850   399 

Exhibit  O.  H.  No.  15. — Letter:  Alex.  Forbes  to  Jas.  Alex. 

Forbes,  Jan.  10,  1851 407 

Exhibit  O.  H.  No.  16.— Letter :  Alex.  Forbes  to  Jas.  Alex. 

Forbes,  May  11,  1846 382 

Exhibit  O.  H.  No.  17. — Letter:  Alex.  Forbes  to  Jas.  Alex. 

Forbes,  Sept.  2,  1846 382 

Exhibit  O.  H.  No.  18. — Letter  :  Alex.  Forbes  to  Jas.  Alex. 

Forbes,  Jan.  7,  1847 383 

Exhibit  O.  H.  No.  19. — Letter:  Alex.  Forbes  to  Jas.  Alex. 

Forbes,  Oct.  1,  1847 384 

Exhibit  O.  H.  No.  20. — Letter:  Alex.  Forbes  to  Jas.  Alex. 

Forbes,  Jan.  19,  1848 386 

Exhibit  O.  H.  No.  21. — Letter :  Alex.  Forbes  to  Jas.  Alex. 

Forbes,  Nov.  19,  1847 385 

Exhibit  O.  H.  No.  22.— Letter :  Alex.  Forbes  to  Jas.  Alex. 

Forbes,  Feb.  1,  1848 388 

Exhibit  O.  II.  No.  23.— Letter  :  Alex.  Forbes  to  J.  A.  Forbes 

and  Padre  Real,  Nov.  24,  1847 386 

Exhibit  O.  H.  No.  24.— Petition :  Alex.  Forbes  to  Alcalde  of 

San  Jose,  Jan.  19,  1848 387 

Exhibit  O.  H.  No.  25. — Explanatory  Sketch  of  the  Lines  of 

Xevv  Almaden 

Exhibit  O.  II.  No.  26.— List  of  Documents  contained  in  the 

Box 408 

Exhibit  0.  H.  No.  27.— Letter  :  Barron,  Forbes  &  Co.  to  J. 

A.  Forbes,  April  11,  1849 ' 390 

Exhibit  O.  H.  No.  28.— Deed :  S.  and  J.  T.  Robles  to  Jas. 

Alex.  Forbes,  Sept.  14,  1847 1 72 

Exhibit  O.  H.  No.  28^-.— Deed  :  Jose  Castro  to  Alex.  Forbes, 

1847 151 

Exhibit  O.  II.  No.  29.— Translation  of  Exhibit  0.  H.  No.  28£  492 
Exhibit,  0.  II.  No.  30.— Deed  :  S.  and  J.  T.  Robles  to  R 

Walkinshaw,  April  14,  1848 '  173 

Exhibit  ().  II.  No.  31.— Deed  :   Padre  Real  to  R.  Walkinshaw, 

Aug.  9,  1849 175 

Exhibit  O.  II.  No.  32.— Translation  of  Exhibit  0.  H.  No.  31.  505 


7 

Page. 

Exhibit  0.  H.  No.   33.— Deed :  Castillero  to  Alex.  Forbes 

Dec.  27,  1847 149 

Exhibit  0.  H.  No.  34.— Translation   of  Exhibit  6.  H.  No. 

33 507 

Exhibit  O.  H.  No.  35.— Power  of  Attorney  :  Alex.  Forbes 

to  Jas.  Alexander  Forbes,  April  23,  1849 510 

Exhibit  O.  H.  No.  36.— Deed :  J.  A.  Forbes  to  John  Par- 

rott,  Aug.  9,  1850 179 

Exhibit  0.  H.  No.  37.— Deed  :  J.  A.  Forbes  to  H.  Lauren- 
eel,  Sept.  10,  1850 180 

Exhibit  0.  H.  No.  38.— Deed :  H.  Laurencel  to  Bolton  & 

Barron,  March  22,  1851 182 

Exhibit  0.  H.  No.  39.— Deed  :  Bolton  &  Barron  to  J.  E. 

Fernandez,  April  30,  1852 183 

Exhibit  0.  H.  No.  40.— Deed :  J.  E.  Fernandez  to  J.  F.  De 

Leon,  April  14,  1853 .' 185 

Exhibit  O.  H.  No.  41.— Deed:  J.  F.  De  Leon  to  Jas.  A. 

Forbes,  Aug.  4,  1853 187 

Exhibit  O.  H.  No.  42.— Deed  :    J.  A.  Forbes  to  Wm.  E.  Bar- 
ron, March  30,  1855 189 

Exhibit  0.  H.  No.  43.— Deed  :  J.  A.  Forbes  to  Win.  E.  Bar- 
ron, May  29,  1855 512 

Exhibit  0.  H.  No.  44.— Deed  :  Jeeker,  Torre  &  Co.  to  Bar- 
ron, Forbes  &  Co.,  Dec.  7,  1852 192 

Exhibit  O.  H.  No.  45.— Translation  of  Exhibit  O.  H.  No.  44.  514 
Exhibit  0.  H.  No.  46.— Deed  :  Castillero  to  Fred'k  Billings, 

Oct.  2,  1856 519 

Exhibit  0.  H.  No.  47.— Deed :   Fred'k  Billings  to  Wm.  E. 

Barron,  Nov.  18,  1856 520 

Exhibit  0.  H.  No.  48. — Additional  Extracts  from  Lafragua's 

Report.     (See  Exhibit  D.  page  69) 523 

Exhibit  0.  H.  No.  49.— Translation  of  Exhibit  0.  H.  No.  48.  531 
Exhibit  O.  H.  No.  50. — Certified  Transcript  from  3d  District 

Court ;  Berreyesa,  et  al.  v.  Forbes,  et  al 219 

Exhibit  O.  H.  No.  51. — Certified  Copy  Bill  and  Answer  from 

U.  S.  Circuit  Court :  Berreyesa,  et  al.  v.  Forbes,  et  al .  . .    199 
Exhibit  O.  H.  X.  No.  1. — Letter:  Jas.  Alex.  Forbes  to  Eus- 
tace Barron,  Jan.  30,  1846 539 

Exhibit  O.  H.  X.  No.  2.— Letter :  Jas.  Alex.  Forbes  to  Alex. 

Forbes,  Sept.  22,  1846 540 

Exhibit  0.  IT.  X.  No.  3.— Letter  :  Jas.  Alex.  Forbes  to  Alex. 

Forbes,  July  14,  1847 •  •  •  •   541 

Exhibit  0.  H.  X.  No.  4.— Letter  :  Jas.  Alex.  Forbes  to  Alex. 

Forbes,  Feb.  7,  1848 542 

Exhibit  0.  H.  X.  No.  5. — Letter  :  Barron,  Forbes'  &  Co.  to 

Jas.  Alex.  Forbes,  Feb.  6,  1850 543 

Exhibit  O.  H.  X.  No.  6.— Letter  :  J.  Alex.  Forbes  to  Ysidoro 

De  la  Torre,  June  18,  1850 •  •  •   544 

Exhibit  0.  H.  X.  No.  7.— Notarial  Copy  of  Castillo  Lanzas' 

Document 645 


8 

Tage. 

Exhibit  O.  IT.  X.  No.  7^-.— Letter :  J.  A.  Forbes  to  Alex. 

Forbes,  Feb.  17,  1848 547 

Exhibit  O.  H.  X.  No.  8.— Ratification  of  Contract  by  J.  Alex. 

Forbes,  Mav  4,  1847 548 

Exhibit  0.  H.  X.  No.  9.— Document  referred  to  in  "  O.  H. 

No.  7,"  page  396 550 

Answer  in  Equity :  Tobin  et  al.  v.  Walkinshawet  al 557 

Deposition  of  Jose  Fernandez 599 

Exhibit  A.  B. — Chaboya  Copy  of  Pico  Act  of  Possession. .    622 
Exhibit  C.  D. — Articles  of  Partnership ;  Castillero  and  others  624 

Exhibit  T.  R.— Receipt :  March  4,  1846  ;  A.  Gutierrez 626 

Exhibit  M.  A.— Gutierrez  to  Pacheco,  March  9,  1846 627 

Exhibit  X.  Y.— Gutierrez  to  Pacheco,  Feb.  12,  1846 628 

Deposition  of  Antonio  Maria  Pico 628 

Deposition  of  Salvio  Pacheco 664 

Deposition  of  T.  F.  Grant 673 

Deposition  of  Benito  Diaz 676 

Exihibit  No.  1,  X. ;  Exhibit  No.  3,  in  Case  754  ;  T.  O.  Larkin.  715 
Exhibit  No.  2,  X. ;  Exhibit  No.  4,  in  Case  754  ;  T.  O.  Larkin.  716 

Deposition  of  John  M.  Murphy 743 

Deposition  of  Domingo  Danglada 749 

Deposition  of  John  M.  Murphy 752 

Exhibit  No.  I.— Giants  by  Pedro  Chabolla 754 

Translation  of  Exhibit  No.  1 761 

Deposition  of  Rafael  Sanchez , '. 765 

Deposition  of  William  McCutchen 766 

Subpena  duces  tecum  to  Chapman  Yates 768 

Deposition  of  Chapman  Yates 769 

Exhibit  No.  1. — Inventory  of  Books  and  Documents  of  Juz- 

gado  de  San  Jose,  Jan.  2,  1846 807 

Exhibit  No.  2.— Letter:  Manuel  Castro  to  First  Alcalde,  San 

Jose,  Dec.  15,  1845 809 

Exhibit  No.  3.— Letter :  J.  Alex.  Forbes  to   John   Burton, 

Aug.   14,  1847 810 

Exhibit  No.  4.— Inventory  of  Property,  San  Jose,  1846  and 

1847 810 

Exhibit  No.   5. — Communication   from    Mayor    and  W.   F. 

♦Lovett  to  the  Common  Council,  San  Jose,  M'ch  3, 1852.  812 
Exhibit  No.  6.— Extract  from  Minutes  :    G.  C.  Cook  v.  J.  A. 

Forbes,  1847 815 

Exhibit  No.  7.— Notice  to  the  Public  by  Dolores  Pacheco, 

June  7,  1846 81 6 

Translation  of  Exhibit  No.  7 816 

Exhibit  No.  8.— Notice  to  the  Public  by  Dolores  Pacheco, 

.    April  24,  1846 817 

Translation  of  Exhibit  No.  8 818 


9 

Page. 

Offer  of  Evidence  by  the  United  States 772 

Expediente  of  Justo  Larios 173 

Translation 775 

Grant  annexed  to  Deposition  of  Antonio  Sunol 718 

Translation   779 

Expediente  of  Jose  R.  Berreyesa 781 

Translation 787 

Translation  of  "  R.  No.  1  "—(page  257) 794 

Translation  of  "  R.  No.  2  "—(page  311) 797 

Translation  of  "  R.  No.  9  "—(page  286) 802 

•      Translation  of  "  A.  P.  L."— (page  73) 803 

Translation  of  "  G.  M.  Y."—  (page  147) 805 

Translation  of  "  J.  W.  W."— (page  168) 806 


TRANSCRIPT 


PROCEEDINGS, 

■ 
In  Case  No.  366, 

ANDRES  CASTILLERO,  Claimant, 

VS. 

The  UNITED  STATES,  Defendant, 

FOR  THE  PLACE  NAMED 


SAN     FRANCISCO: 
WHITTON,  TOWNE  &  CO.,  PRINTERS,  EXCELSIOR  STEAM  PRESSES, 

125     CLAY     STREET,     COBNEB     BANSOME. 

1858. 


OFFICE  OF  THE  BOARD  OF  COMMISSIONERS 

TO  ASCERTAIN  AND  SETTLE  THE  PRIVATE  LAND  CLAIMS 

IN     THE    STATE    OF    CALIFORNIA. 


Be  it  Remembered,  That  on  this  thirtieth  day  of  September,  Anno 
Domini  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  fifty-two,  before  the  Commis- 
sioners to  ascertain  and  settle  the  Private  Land  Claims  in  the  State  of 
California,  sitting  as  a  Board  in  the  city  of  San  San  Francisco,  in  the 
State  aforesaid,  in  the  United  States  of  America,  the  following  pro- 
ceedings were  had,  to  wit ; 

The  petition  of  Andres  Castillero,  for  the  place  named  "  New 
Almaden,"  was  presented,  and  ordered  to  be  filed  and  docketed  with 
No.  336,  and  is  as  follows,  to  wit : 

(Vide  page  5  of  this  Transcript.) 

Upon  which  petition  the  following  subsequent  proceedings  were  had 
in  their  chronological  order,  to  wit : 

San  Francisco,  April  5,  1853. 
In  case  No.  366,  Andres  Castellero,  for  the  place  named  "  I 
Almaden,"  the  deposition  of  F.  Alden,  a  witness  in  behalf  of  the 
claimant,  taken  before  Commissioner  Harry  I.  Thornton,  with  docu- 
ments marked  H.  I.  T,  Nos.  1,  2  and  3,  annexed  thereto,  was  filed  ; 


(Vide  page  10  of  this  Transcript.) 

San  Francisco,  Sept.  28,  1853. 
Case  No  366  was  ordered^  on  motion  of  claimant's  counsel,  to  the 
foot  of  the  docket. 

San  Francisco,  Feb'y  18,  1854. 
In  the  same  case  the  deposition  of  Chester  S.  Lyman,  a  witness  in 
behalf  of  the  claimant,  taken  before   Commissioner  Alpheus  Felch, 
was  filed. 

(Vide  page  15  of  this  Transcript.) 

San  Francisco,  Sept.  26,  1854. 
Case  No.  366  was  ordered  to  be  placed  at  the  foot  of  the  2d  class 
cases  on  the  trial  docket. 

San  Francisco,  Oct.  23d,  1854. 
In  the  same  case  the  counsel  for  the  claimant  filed  the  following 
affidavit,  to  wit : 

(Vide  page  19  of  this  Transcript.) 

San  Francisco,  November  7,  1854. 
Case  No.  366,  on  motion  of  the  claimant's  counsel,  with  the  consent 
of  the  U.  S.  Law  Agent,  was  ordered  to  be  placed  at  the  foot  of  the 
4th  class  cases  on  the  trial  docket. 

San  Francisco,  January  30,  1855. 
In   the  same  case  the  deposition  of  Jose'  Maria  Lafragua,  a  witness 
in  behalf  of  the  claimant,  taken  before  Commissioner  Peter  Lott,  with 
documents  marked  "Exhibits,  A.,  P.  L,"  "  B.,  P.  L.,"  "  C,  P.  L.," 
"  D.,  P.  L.,"  annexed  thereto,  was  filed; 

(Vide  page  22  of  this  Transcript.) 

San  Francisco,  March  19,  1855. 
In  the  same  case  the  depositions  of  Frank  Lewis,  Jose'  Noriega,  and 
Antonio  Suiiol,  witnesses  in  behalf  the   claimant,  taken  before   Com- 
missioner  Peter   Lott,   the   last   with   document    marked   "  Exhibit 
A.,  P.  L.,"  annexed  thereto,  were  filed; 

(Vide  pages  35,  38  and  43  of  this  Transcript.) 


San  Francisco,  March  21,  1855. 
In  the  same  case  tlfe  depositions  of  Domingo  Danglada,  and  Fran- 
cisco de  Leon,  witnesses  in  behalf  of  the  claimant,  taken  before  Com- 
missioner Alpheus  Felch,  were  filed ; 

(Vide  pages  45  and  48  of  this  Transcript.) 

San  Francisco,  March  28,  1855. 
In  the  same  case  the  deposition  of  Jose*  Fernandez,  a  witness  in 
behalf  of  the  claimant,  taken  before   Commissioner  Peter  Lott,  was 
filed; 

(Vide  page  51  of  this  Transcript.) 

San  Francisco,  April  3d,  1855. 
Case  No.  366  was  submitted  on  briefs  and  taken  under  advisement 
by  the  Board. 

San  Francisco,  Jan'y  8,  1856. 
In  the  same  case,  Commissioner  Alpheus  Felch  delivered  the  opinion 
of  the  Board — Commissioner  R.  Aug.  Thompson  dissenting — confirm- 
ing the  mining  rights,  and  rejecting  the  claim  for  the  land : 

(Vide  pages  139  and  197  of  this  Transcript.) 

And  the  following  order  was  made,  to  wit ; 

(Vide  page  220  of  this  Transcript.) 


PETITION. 

To  the  Honorable  Commissioners  to  settle  Private  Land  Claims  in 

California : 

The  petitioner,  Andres  Castillero,  respectfully  shows : 

That  in  the  year  1845,  the  petitioner,  Andres  Castillero,  discovered 
a  mine  of  cinnabar  in  the  then  jurisdiction  of  San  Jose,  and  in  the  now 
county  of  Santa  Clara,  in  this  State : 

That  having  formed  a  company  for  working  said  mine,  he,  on  the 
22d  day  of  November  and  on  the  3d  day  of  December,  A.  D.  1845, 


U 


ui  th 


received  from  the  magistrate  of  that  jurisdiction,  in  due  form,  the  juridi- 
cal possession  of  said  mine,  and  land  to  the  ement  of  three  thousand 
varas  in  all  directions  :  all  of  which  is  shown  by  the  duly  authenticated 
papers,  issued  from  the  office  of  said  magistrate,  copies  of  which  are 
submitted  herewith  marked  "  A,"  with  translations  marked  "  B." 

That  said  record  of  testimony  of  his  mining  possession  was  soon  after 
submitted  to  the  Junta  de  Fomento  y  Administracion  de  Mineria,  the 
highest  mining  tribunal  in  the  Republic  of  Mexico  ;  which  tribunal, 
after  mature  deliberation,  and  an  examination  of  the  laws  relative 
thereto,  on  the  14th  day  of  May,  A.  D.  1846,  declared  said  juridical 
possession,  although  embracing  an  unusually  large  extent  of  land,  to 
be  in  accordance  to  law,  and  fully  justified  by  the  peculiar  circum- 
stances of  the  case,  and  they  therefore  recommended  to  the  Executive 
power  of  the  Republic,  through  the  Minister  of  Justice,  not  only  that 
the  mining  possession  of  three  thousand  varas  in  all  directions  from 
the  mouth  of  the  mine,  be  confirmed  but  that  the  Executive  should 
also  grant  in  fee  to  the  said  Castillero,  for  the  benefit  of  his  mine,  two 
square  leagues  of  land  on  the  surface  of  his  mining  possession. 

That  on  the  20th  day  of  May,  A.  D.  1846,  the  Minister  of  Justice 
replied  to  the  President  of  the  "Junta  de  Mineria"  that  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  Republic  had  acceded  to  the  recommendations  of  the 
Junta  and  the  petition  of  Castillero,  and  granted  the  land  so  asked  for, 
and  so  recommended. 

That  on  the  same  day  the  Minister  of  Justice  officially  notified  the 
Minister  of  Exterior  Relations,  Government  and  Police,  of  the  afore- 
said grant  of  the  President  of  the  Republic,  in  order  that  the  corres- 
ponding decree  or  order  might  be  issued  ;  all  of  which  is  fully 
shown  by  the  duly  attested  documents  issued  from  the  corresponding- 
offices  in  Mexico;  copies  of  which,  and  also  copies  of  the  duly  authen- 
ticated certificates  of  the  Minister  of  Interior  and  Exterior  Relations, 
and  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Mining  Tribunal,  that  the  aforesaid  grant 
of  land  to  the  petitioner  Castillero,  was  legal  and  approved  by  the 
Supreme  Government,  are  submitted  herewith,  marked  "  C,"  with 
translations  marked  u  D." 

That  on  the  23d  day  of  May,  A.  D.  1846,  the  Minister  of  Exterior 
Relations,  Government  and  Police  issued  his  order  to  the  Governor  of 
California,  notifying  him  of  the  aforesaid  grant  to  Castillero,  and  di- 
recting the  said  Governor  to  put  Castillero  in  possession  of  the 
two  square  leagues  so  granted  ;  a  copy  of  which  order' or  patent  of 
title  is  submitted  herewith,  marked  "  E.,"  with  a  translation  marked 
u  jr." 

That  the  said  Castillero,  immediately  on  receiving  the  aforesaid  grant 
from  the  government  of  Mexico,  .started  for  California  for  the  purpose 


of  measuring  off  and  taking  the  juridical  possession  of  the  land  so 
granted,  but  was  prevented  from  so  doing  and  interrupted  in  his  jour- 
ney by  the  operations  of  the  war  which  was  then  commencing  between 
the  United  States  of  America  and  the  Republic  of  Mexico  ;  he  how- 
ever still  continued  by  his  agents  and  servants  in  the  occupation  of 
the  land  of  his  mining  possession  ;  and  in  the  latter  part  of  the  year 
184:7,  or  the  beginning  of  the  year  1848,  and  as  soon  as  the  opera- 
tions of  the  war  between  the  two  nations  would  permit,  he  procured  a 
survey  of  the  land  so  granted,  and  marked  out  its  boundaries  ;  a  copy 
of  which  notes  of  survey,  dated  March  7th,  1848,  and  a  plot  of  the 
land,  made  and  executed  by  Chester  S.  Lyman,  a  duly  appointed  and 
authorized  surveyor  of  the  Middle  Department  of  California,  copies  of 
which  notes  of  survey  and  plot  are  submitted  herewith,  marked  u  G." 

And  the  petitioner  further  shows :  that  the  said  survey  was  made 
with  as  much  formality  as  was  possible,  and  by  the  most  skilful  and 
competent  officer  to  be  procured  in  the  then  peculiar  state  of  the 
country,  and  under  the  then  organized  de  facto  government  of  Califor- 
nia ;  that  in  order  to  avoid  all  questions  of  boundary  with  the  claim- 
ants of  the  neighboring  lands,  the  agents  of  Castillero  and  those 
holding  under  him  in  making  the  said  survey  and  marking  the  bound- 
aries of  his  grant  as  aforesaid,  so  located  it  on  their  then  mining  pos- 
session which  had  been  given  to  Castilero  in  1845,  and  duly  approved 
as  aforesaid,  as  to  leave  the  mouth  of  the  said  quicksilver  mine  now 
called  "  New  Almaden,"  in  the  centre,  or  nearly  so,  of  said  grant  so 
located,  and  to  include  little  or  no  land  on  the  side  next  the  claimants 
of  neighboring  lands,  but  on  the  contrary  to  leave  out  a  considerable 
portion  of  land,  included  in  the  said  juridical  possession,  on  the  side 
next  such  claimants  ;  this  being  done  to  avoid  all  dispute  respecting 
boundaries ;  all  of  which  is  shown  by  the  plot*submitted  herewith 
marked  "  H." 

That  the  said  tract  of  land  has  not  been  surveyed  by  the  Surveyor- 
General  of  the  United  States,  but  that  it  was  duly  surveyed,  and  its 
boundaries  marked  in  the  year  1848,  as  aforesaid  ;  that  these  bound- 
aries are  well  known,  and  that  the  land  within  them  has  been  in  the 
possession  of,  and  occupied  by,  the  said  Castillero,  his  agents,  and 
those  holding  under  him,  since  the  year  18.45  by  juridical  authority, 
and  since  the  month  of  May  1846,  by  virtue  of  a  title  in  fee. 

That  the  rights  acquired  under  said  denouncement  and  juridical 
possession  have  continued  uninterrupted  until  the  present  time,  and 
now  are  vested  solely  and  wholly  in  the  petitioner,  Castillero,  and 
those  holding  under  him  ;  that  by  the  working  of  the  mine  from  its 
denouncement  as  aforesaid,  he  acquired  by  the  laws  of  Mexico  a  per- 
fect title  to  the  minerals  of  said  mine,  and  a  perfect  right  to  use  the 
said  land  for  said  mining  purposes,  even  if  he  had  no  title  in  fee  to 


8 

the  land  itself ;  but  he  avers  and  has  shown  that  such  title  in  fee  ab- 
solute was  conveyed  to  him  by  the  grant  aforesaid  on  the  20th  day  of 
May,  1846. 

That  since  the  petitioner  took  possession  of  said  mine  and  tract  of 
land  in  the  year  1845,  and  more  particularly  since  he  received  the 
said  grant  in  fee  in  the  month  of  May  1846,  he  and  his  associates 
holding  under  him  have  expended  immense  sums  of  money  in  work- 
ing said  mine  and  in  improving  said  land,  in  constructing  roads,  opening 
quarries,  erecting  lime  kilns,  furnaces,  smelting  works,  machinery 
storehouses,  and  other  costly  works  of  permanent  utility,  viz  :  from 
December,  1845,  to  the  first  day  of  May,  1852,  the  sum  of 
$978,114,^. 

And  the  petitioner  relies  for  confirmation  of  title  upon  the  original 
documents,  copies  of  which  are  transmitted  herewith  ;  and  upon  such 
other  and  further  proofs  as  they  may  be  advised  are  necessary. 

Wherefore  the  said  Castillero  prays  this  Honorable  Board  of  Com- 
missioners to  confirm  to  him  the  aforesaid  tract  of  two  square  leagues 
of  land,  as  embraced  in  his  mining  possession  and  grant  as  aforesaid, 
and  described  in  the  accompanying  surveys  and  maps 

By  his  attorneys, 

HALLECK  PEACHY  &  BILLINGS 

Filed  in  office  Sept.  30,  1852. 

GEO  FISHER,  Sec. 


DEPOSITION  OF  F.  ALDEN. 

San  Francisco,  April  5th,  1853. 
On  this  day  before  Comr  H.  I.  Thornton,  came  Fernando  Alden, 
a  witness  on  the  part  of  the   claimant  A.   Castillero,  petition  No. 
366,  and  was  duly  sworn,  his  evidence  being  given  in  English. 

( In  answer  to  enquiries  propounded  by  counsel  for  the  claimant,  the 
witness  testified  as  follows  : 

My  name  is  Fernando  Alden,  my  age  is  49  years.  I  first  came  to 
San  Francisco  21  years  ago  the  1st  day  of  this  month  :  I  have  lived 
in  Mexico  and  California  25  years.  I  first  went  to  live  on  the  lands 
of  New  Almaden  about  the  1st  day  of  April,  1847,  and  continued 
to  reside  there  until  about  a  year  ago.  I  acted  as  the  agent  and 
overseer  for  the  Company  who  held  under  the  present  claimant^  Andres 


Castillero,  but  I  never  have  and  do  not  now  own  any  interest  in  these 
lands  or  mine. 

In  the  early  part  of  1848,  the  lands  called  New  Almaden,  were 
surveyed,  by  Mr.  C.  S.  Lyman,  the  Surveyor  of  the  Middle  District  of 
California  ;  I  was  present  and  assisted  in  making  a  part  of  this  survey. 
I  have  compared  the  notes  of  survey  and  map  filed  with  this  deposition, 
and  marked  Exhibit  No.  1,  with  the  original  notes  of  survey  and  map 
made  by  Mr.  Lyman  in  1848,  and  find  them  to  be  exact  copies  of  the 
originals  made  at  that  time.  The  land  claimed  by  Castillero,  and  those 
holding  under  him,  is  marked  out  by  the  red  lines  on  this  map,  and 
has  been  in  their  possession  and  occupation  ever  since  I  first  went 
there  in  March  or  April,  1847.  The  boundaries  are  distinctly  marked 
and  well  known.  The  tract  is  bounded  on  the  west,  south,  and  east, 
by  public  lands  ;  on  the  south  and  south-east  by  the  lands  claimed  by 
the  heirs  of  Jose  R.  Berreyesa.  His  widow,  Maria  E.  Berreyesa,  and 
several  of  his  children,  (of  whom  I  particularly  remember  his  sons 
Fernando  Berreyesa,  Nemesio  Berreyesa,  Jose  Encarnacion  Berreyesa, 
and  his  son-in-law  Lorenzo  Pineda)  were  present  when  this  survey 
was  made,  and  pointed  out  and  assisted  in  establishing  the  boundaries 
between  the  lands  of  New  Almaden  and  the  lands  of  the  Rancho  of 
San  Vicente,  claimed  and  occupied  by  the  Berreyesas,  and  they  assent- 
ed to  the  boundaries  described  in  the  aforesaid  survey  and  map  as  the 
dividing  lines  between  their  lands  and  the  lands  of  New  Almaden. 

The  Quicksilver  Mine  of  New  Almaden  is  situate  nearly  in  the  cen- 
tre of  the  tract  represented  in  the  aforesaid  survey  and  map.  When 
I  first  went  upon  this  land  as  an  agent,  in  March  or  April,  A.  D.  1847, 
the  mine  had  been  worked  by  Castillero  to  a  considerable  extent,  and 
some  small  buildings  erected ;  the  works  were  then  commenced  on  a 
larger  scale,  and  have  been  continued  ever  since  to  the  present  time. 
The  amount  of  money  expended  in  these  works,  the  erection  of  build- 
ings, furnaces  and  store-houses,  and  in  the  construction  of  roads, 
bridges,  &c,  has,  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge  and  belief,  been  about 
one  million  of  dollars.  A  portion  of  the  land  has  been  and  now  is  oc- 
cupied by  the  works,  furnaces  and  buildings  of  the  claimants,  and  the 
other  portions  as  pastures  for  the  animals  used  on  these  works,  and  for 
cutting  fuel  for  the  furnaces  ;  the  land  embraced  in  this  claim  is  all 
very  rough  and  mountainous,  and  is  only  useful  as  woodland  and  as 
pasture,  not  being  suitable  for  cultivation.  I  was  in  Mexico  in  1846, 
and  left  there  to  take  up  my  residence  at  New  Almaden,  in  January, 
1847. 

When  I  was  in  Mexico  in  1846,  I  heard  of  this  grant  by  the  Mexi- 
can Government  of  two  leagues  to  Andres  Castillero,  and  I  was  em- 
ployed by  the  agent  and  partner  of  Castillero — Alexander  Forbes— to 
2 


10 

come  to  California  for  the  purpose  of  working  the  mine,  erecting  works 
and  buildings,  and  occupying  the  land  so  granted  to  Castillero. 

The  aforesaid  survey  and  map  were  made  to  mark  out  the  land  so 
granted,  and  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge  and  belief  do  so  represent 
it.  I  am  a  surveyor,  and  in  early  life  was  employed  by  Benjamin 
Wright,  the  celebrated  Engineer,  in  surveying  the  Erie  Canal,  in  the 
State  of  New  York,  and  have  been  frequently  engaged  in  surveying 
since  that  time.  I  am  a  native  of  Oneida  County,  in  the  State  of  New 
York. 

The  mining  possession  upon  which  this  grant  of  two  square  leagues 
was  made  by  the  Mexican  Government,  was  3000  varas  in  every  di- 
rection from  the  mouth  of  the  mine,  and  this  survey  was  made  so  as 
to  locate  the  two  leagues  granted  to  Castillero,  as  nearly  over  this  min- 
ing possession  as  could  be  done  without  interfering  with  lands  claimed 
by  the  Berreyesas.  The  dividing  line  between  this  survey  and  the 
Berreyesas,  was  that  fixed  and  claimed  by  the  Berreyesas  themselves. 
Mr.  Lymcin,  the  Surveyor,  removed  from  this  State  several  years  ago, 
and  I  am  informed  resides  in  the  State  of  Connecticut. 

Questions  by  U.  S.  Law  Agent. 

1st. — What  do  you  mean  by  laying  out  the  two  leagues  on  the  min- 
eral possession  ? 

Answer. — I  mean  that  the  grant  described  the  land  as  "  Sobre  el 
terreno  de  su  possession  mineria,"  and  that  the  two  leagues  were 
marked  out  as  nearly  on  this  mineral  possession  as  it  could  be,  and 
not  conflict  with  the  lines  of  private  claims.  Taking  the  mineral  pos- 
session as  three  thousand  varas  each  way  in  the  direction  of  the  four 
winds  from  the  mouth  of  the  mine,  and  forming  a  square,  it  would  in- 
clude a  strip  claimed  by  the  Berreyesas. 

The  survey  was  therefore  made  to  follow  the  lines  of  the  Berreyesas' 
claim,  as  established  by  themselves,  and  the  two  leagues  laid  out  as 
nearly  on  this  square  as  it  could  be,  by  taking  the  highest  points  of 
the  mountains  as  landmarks,  and  following  the  lines  pointed  out  by  the 
Berreyesas  as  their  boundaries.  This  is  shown  by  the  plot  filed  here- 
with as  Exhibit  No.  2,  and  by  comparing  it  with  Exhibit  No.  1. 

Questions  by  Claimant's  Counsel. 

1.— Examine  paper  marked  Exhibit  No.  3,  and  filed  herewith,  and 
say  if  it  is,  to  the  best  of  your  recollection,  a  correct  copy  of  the  grant 
referred  to  in  your  answer  to  the  foregoing  question  ;  and  if  the  survey 
you  speak  of  was  made  to  represent  the   land  described  in  this  grant. 


11 

Answer. — I  have  compared  this  copy  with  original  grant  to  which  I 
referred,  and  find  it  a  correct  copy  ;  the  survey  was  made  to  mark  out 
the  land  described  in  the  grant. 

2nd  Question. — Was  the  agent  of  the  grantee  satisfied  with  this 
survey,  and  were  the  colindantes  or  bordering  owners  satisfied  with 
this  survey  ? 

Answer. — The  agent  of  Castillero  was  satisfied  with  this  survey. 
The  Berreyesas,  as  I  have  already  said,  assented  to  it,  and  assisted 
in  marking  the  lines,  and  no  others  to  my  knowledge  made  any  objec- 
tion to  it. 

FERNANDO  ALDEN. 

U.  S.  Law  Agent  present. 

Sworn  to  and  subscribed  before  me,  this  5th  of  April,  1 853. 

HARRY  I.  THORNTON, 

Comr. 

Filed  in  Office,  April  5th,  1853. 

GEO.  FISHER,  Sec. 


DEPOSITION  OF  CHESTER  S.  LYMAN. 

United  States  Land  Commission,  ) 
San  Francisco,  Feb'y  18,  1854.      \ 

On  this  day  before  Commissioner  Alpheus  Felch,  came  Chester  S. 
Lyman,  a  witness  in  behalf  of  the  claimant,  Andres  Castillero,  case 
No.  366,  who  after  being  duly  sworn,  deposed  as  follows  : 

Questions  by  Mr.  Peachy,  Attorney  for  Claimant. 

1st  Question. — What   is  your  name,  age,  and  place  of  residence  ? 

Answer. — My  name  is  Chester  S.  Lyman,  my  age  is  forty  years, 
and  I  reside  in  New  Haven,  in  the  State  of  Connecticut. 

2nd  Question. —  Did  you  ever  make  a  survey  of  the  land  lying 
around  the  Almaden  Mine,  in  Santa  Clara  County,  in  the  State  of 
California  ;  if  so,  state  when  and  at  whose  request  you  made  it,  and  in 
what  manner  the  survey  was  made  ? 

Answer. — I  made  such  survey  in  the  month  of  February,  1848,  at 
the  request  of  James  Alexander  Forbes,  of  California,  and  Alexander 
Forbes,  of  Topic,  in  Mexico,  who  was  at  that  time  at  said  mines. 


12 

At  the  time  the  survey  was  made  I  held  a  commission  from  General 
Mason,  who  was  then  Governor  of  California,  as  Surveyor  for  the  Mid- 
dle Department  of  California,  which  embraced  what  is  now  Santa  Clara 
County.  I  was  requested  to  lay  out  two  square  leagues  of  land,  and 
was  shown  either  a  grant  or  a  copy  of  a  grant  from  the  Mexican  Gov- 
ernment for  those  two  square  leagues.  These  were  to  be  laid  out  so 
as  to  cover  certain  mining  rights  called  " pertenencia"  which  extend- 
ed three  thousand  varas  in  each  direction  from  the  mouth  of  the  mine. 
I  made  the  survey  by  triangulation,  and  it  was  so  made  as  to  include 
two  square  leagues  in  a  somewhat  irregular  shape,  approximating  a 
rectangle,  and  it  was  so  surveyed  as  to  have  the  mouth  of  the  mine  as 
near  in  the  centre  as  could  be  without  covering  land  of  the  neighboring 
ranchos  claimed  by  individual  owners. 

If  there  had  been  no  surrounding  claims,  it  would  have  been  laid 
out  with  the  mouth  of  the  mine  in  the  centre. 

The  survey  includes  the  pertenencia  of  three  thousand  varas  in  each 
direction  from  the  mouth  of  the  mine,  excepting  on  the  north,  side. 
On  that  side,  the  line  was  placed  by  me  where  it  is  on  account  of  the 
claim  of  the  land  by  Grove  C.  Cook,  and  by  the  family  of  Berreyesa. 

The  Rancho  claimed  by  Cook  is  called  the  Justo  Larios  Rancho, 
and  that  claimed  by  the  Berreyesa  family  is  called  San  Vicente.  The 
line  as  actually  run  by  me  on  the  portion  adjoining  San  Vicente,  was 
one  which  was  agreed  upon  at  the  time  of  compromise  between  said 
Forbes  and  the  Berreyesa  family.  I  was  at  the  same  time  when  this 
survey  was  being  made,  requested  by  the  widow  Berreyesa  to  make  a 
survey  of  the  Rancho  San  Vicente.  I  made,  in  fact,  both  surveys  at 
the  same  time,  and  one  of  her  sons  went  with  me  and  pointed  out  the 
boundaries  which  they  claimed. 

The  line  above  mentioned  as  agreed  upon,  was  made  the  boundary 
between  the  two. 

3d  Question. — Look  on  the  document  now  presented  to  you,  being 
a  map  and  description  of  boundaries  marked  "  Exhibit  No.  1  "  to  the 
Deposition  of  Fernando  Alden  taken  in  No.  366.  H.  I.  T.",  hereto- 
fore filed  in  this  case,  and  state  whether  you  recognise  the  same  as 
accurate  copies  of  the  field  notes  and  map  of  the  survey  made  by  you 
as  above  mentioned  ? 

Answer. — I  have  examined.  They  appear  to  be  accurate  copies  of 
the  originals.  The  map  appears  to  me  to  be  a  perfect  fac-simile  in  all 
its  details. 

4th  Question. — Please  state  what  improvements  were  on  the  land 
when  you  made  the  survey  of  it. 

Answer.— There  were  works  on  it  for  extracting  quicksilver,  em- 
bracing four  furnaces,  and  there  were  between  twenty  and  thirty  men 


13 

at  work  on  it.  The  miners  were  Mexicans ;  the  other  hands  at  work 
were  principally  Americans. 

There  was  a  storehouse  of  considerable  extent,  where  the  quicksilver 
and  some  goods  were  kept. 

There  were  four  or  five  lodging  and  boarding  houses.  The  princi- 
pal house  was  occupied  by  Mr.  Forbes  for  an  office  and  lodging  places. 
There  were  also  other  improvements  there,  but  I  cannot  now  specify 
them. 

Questions  by  Mr.  McKune,  Law  Agent. 

1st  Question. — Who  did  you   understand   was  working  the   mines 
at  the  time  you  made  the  survey  ? 
Answer. — Alexander  Forbes. 

(The  Law  Agent  objects  to  the  foregoing  deposition  being  read  and 
considered  as  evidence  on  the  grounds,  1.  That  C.  S.  Lyman  was  not 
a  Government  Surveyor,  and  not  authorized  to  make  the  survey.  2. 
The  survey  was  not  made  until  after  the  said  land  became  American 
Territory.  3.  The  commission  spoken  of  in  the  deposition  is  the  only 
evidence  of  such  commission.) 

CHESTER  S.  LYMAN. 

Subscribed  and  sworn  to  before  me,  this  18th  day  of  February,  1854. 

ALPHEUS  FELCH, 

Commis'r. 

Filed  in  Office,  Feb'y  18, 1854. 

GEO.  FISHER,  Sec. 


AFFIDAVIT. 


UNITED  STATES  OF  AMERICA,  )  gg 
State  of  California,  jf 

San  Francisco,  October  23d,  1854. 

This  day  came  before  Peter  Lott,  Commissioner  for  taking  testi- 
mony, to  be  used  before  the  Board  of  U.  S.  Land  Commissioners  in 
said  State. 

I,  William  E.  Barron,  on  oath,  state  as  follows :  That  I  am  the  sole 


14 

attorney  and  agent  in  California  of  Andres  Castillero,  the  owner  and 
claimant  in  this  case  of  the  lands  of  New  Almaden  ;  that  as  such  agent 
and  attorney  I  have  the  entire  management  and  control  of  the  business 
relating  to  said  lands,  and  the  mine  situated  therein,  and  of  the  pros- 
ecution of  this  claim  before  this  Honorable  Board ;  that  I  have  made 
every  exertion  to  procure  from  the  City  of  Mexico  duly  certified 
copies  from  the  archives  of  the  Government,  of  the  papers  relating  to, 
and  constituting  the  title  of  Andres  Castillero  to  the  said  lands  of  New 
Almaden  ;  that  I  have  received,  at  different  times,  two  or  three  copies 
of  said  papers  from  the  archives  of  the  Government,  but  not  verified 
by  the  Great  Seal  of  State,  but  was  informed  by  counsel  that  such 
copies  were  not  so  proved  and  authenticated  as  to  be  entitled  to  be 
used  and  read  as  evidence  in  the  courts  of  the  United  States. 

That  on  the  16th  day  of  la*st  March,  Henry  W.  Halleck,  one  of 
the  claimants  attorneys  in  this  case,  left  the  city  of  San  Francisco, 
with  the  intention  of  proceeding  to  the  city  of  Mexico,  about  the  busi- 
ness of  procuring  testimony  to  prove  the  genuineness  of  the  signatures 
to  the  title  papers  mentioned  and  referred  to  in  the  petition,  but  was 
unable  to  reach  the  city  of  Mexico,  owing  to  the  civil  war  then  pre- 
vailing between  General  Alvarez  and  Santa  Anna. 

That  since  the  attempt  of  Mr.  Halleck  to  reach  the  city  of  Mexico, 
the  civil  war  has  continued  to  prevail,  cutting  off  all  communication 
between  the  capitol  and  Acapulco,  the  only,  port  on  the  Pacific  with 
which  there  is  a  mail  communication  to  San  Francisco,  so  that  depo- 
nent could  communicate  by  mail  with  his  principal  only  by  Havana 
and  New  Orleans. 

•  Affiant  further  says,  that  he  has  used  all  possible  diligence  to  pro- 
cure a  duly  authenticated  copy  of  said  documents  from  the  archives  of 
the  Departments  of  Mexico,  verified  by  the  great  seal  of  State,  but 
that  they  have  been  sent  to  him  verified  by  the  keeper  of  the  archives 
and  the  minister,  but  without  the  great  seal — that  being,  as  he  under- 
stands, the  manner  of  verifying  documents  to  be  used  in  the  Courts  of 
Mexico,  and  he  is  informed  that  in  the  Mexican  Repubic  there  is  no 
seal  used  corresponding  with  what  is  used  in  other  nations,  and  known 
as  their  great  seals  ;  and  that  for  that  reason  he  cannot  procure  copies 
of  said  documents  so  certified  and  authenticated  as,  under  the  advice 
of  counsel,  to  be  safely  depended  on  as  competent  documentary  proof  in 
the  trial  of  this  case. 

Affiant  further  says,  that  he  has  recently  communicated  with  the 
claimant  m  Mexico,  both  by  way  of  Havana  and  by  a  sailing  vessel 
going  to  San  Bias,  and  has  advised  the  claimant  to  procure  the  attend- 
ance before  this  Board  of  a  competent  witness  or  witnesses  acquainted 
with  the  signatures  of  the  public  officers  in  Mexico,  and  who  shall 


15 

have  compared  the  copies  of  said  original  documents  with  the  original 
documents  themselves  on  file  in  the  public  archives,  and  affiant  believes 
that  such  witness  or  witnesses  will  be  in  attendance  on  this  Eoard  as 
soon  as  practicable. 

Affiant  further  says,  that  he  does  not  know  of  any  person  in  this 
State  who  can  prove  the  signatures  to  the  papers  offered  as  claimant's 
title  in  this  case. 

Affiant  further  says,  that  the  failure  to  procure  the  proper  authenti- 
cation of  the  papers  or  witnesses  to  prove  them,  has  not  resulted  from 
a  desire  to  delay  a  decision  in  this  case,  but  from  the  mode  of  verify- 
ing papers  in  Mexico,  and  from  the  difficulty  of  communicating  with 
the  claimant,  who,  he  has  every  reason  to  believe,  is  very  desirous  of 
having  an  early  decision  of  this  Honorable  Board  on  his  claim. 

WM.  E.  BARRON. 

Subscribed  and  sworn  to  before  me,  on  this  28d  day  of  October, 
A.  D.  1854. 

PETER  LOTT, 

Comm'r,  &c. 

Filed  in  office,  Oct.  23,  1854. 

GEO.  FISHER,  Sec. 

DEPOSITION  OF  JOSE  MARIA  LAFRAGUA. 

UNITED  STATES  OF  AMERICA,  )  gs 
State  of  California,  J 

San  Francisco,  January  29,  1855. 
This  day  came  before  Peter  Lott,  Commissioner  for  taking  testi- 
mony to  be  used  before  Board  of  U.  S.  Land  Commissioners  in  said 
State,  Jose  Maria  LaFragua,  a  witness  in  behalf  of  the  claimant,  An- 
dres Castillero,  in  case  No.  366,  on  the  docket  of  said  Board,  and 
said  witness  being  sworn,  deposed  in  Spanish,  which  was  interpreted 
by  the  interpreter  to  said  Board  as  follows : 

The  U.  S.  Associate  Law  Agent  is  present,  and  Judge  Thornton, 
as  Associate  Counsel. 

Questions  by  Mr.  Peachy  for  Claimant. 

1st  Question. — What  is  your  name,  age  and  residence  ? 
Answer. — My  name  is  Jose  Maria  Lafragua,  my  age  41  years,  my 
residence  in  the  city  of  Mexico. 


16 

2nd  Question.— Please  to  state  what  is  your  profession,  and  what 
public  offices  you  have  held. 

Answer. — I  am  ll  lawyer  by  profession,  and  have  held  the  office  ot 
Minutro  de  llelaciones  Interiores  y  Esteriores  de  Mexico,  in  the  latter 
part  of  the  year  18-46.  From  1848  to  1852  I  was  a  Senator  of  the 
Republic  of  Mexico,  and  I  have  been  several  times  a  deputy  in  the 
Mexican  Congress. 

3d  Question.— Look  at  the  document  now  shown  to  you,  marked 
"  A.  P.  L.,"  as  an  Exhibit  to  this  deposition,  and  state^ whether  you 
have  compared  the  writings  therein  contained  with  the  originals  in  the 
archives  in  Mexico  ;  whether  the  same  are  accurate  copies  of  said 
originals  ;  whether  the  originals  are  in  the  offices  where  they  purport 
to  be  ;  whether  you  know  any  or  all  the  signatures  attached  to  said 
originals  ;  what  are  your  means  of  knowing  said  signatures  ;  and  are 
the  same  genuine  ? 

Answer. — I  have  compared  all  the  papers  in  this  document  with  the 
originals  in  the  city  of  Mexico  in  November,  1854,  and  found  them  all 
to  be  correct  copies.  The  said  originals  are  in  the  archives  of  the 
Junta  de  Mineria  and  in  those  of  the  Minister io  de  Relaciones. 

In  1846,  the  business  of  the  Government  relating  to  mines  was  con- 
ducted in  the  department  of  Government  called  Ministerio  de  Justicia, 
and  now  it  is  in  the  department  of  the  Ministerio  de  Jlelaciones  Este- 
8,  and  the  documents  are  properly  in  the  latter  department. 

I  know  the  signatures  of  all  the  persons  whose  names  appear  signed 
in  said  original  papers  in  said  archives. 

I  have  seen  them  all  write,  and  been  familiar  with  their  signatures 
in  many  public  documents,  and  in  these  I  believe  them  all  to  be  gen- 
uine. 

4th  Question. — Are  you  acquainted  with  the  course  of  business  in 
the  Departments  of  the  Government  of  Mexico  ;  if  yea,  state  whether 
copies  of  documents  which  are  transmitted  from  one  Department  of 
the  State  to  the  other  are  preserved  in  the  office  from  which  they  em- 
anate, or  whether  minutes  of  the  same  are  there  kept? 

Answer. — I  am  acquainted  with  the  course  of  business  in  the  offices 
of  the  Government  of  Mexico,  and  in  each  of  the  offices  of  State  are 
kept  copies  of  all  papers  originating  in  or  emanating  from  that  office  ; 
when  papers  are  transmitted  from  that  office  to  another  office  or  De- 
partment of  State,  these  copies  remaining  are  called  Minutas. 

When  the  Minister  of  a  Department  writes  a  despatch  or  official 
letter,  the  original  or  rough  draft,  called  borrador,  is  filed  in  the  office, 
and  constitutes  the  minuta  of  that  transaction. 

5th  Question. — Look  at  the  communication  which  was  made  by  the 
Junta  de  Mineria,  or  by  its  president,  Vicente  Segura,  on  the  14th 


17 

of  May,  1846,  to  the  Minister  of  Justice  and  Public  Instruction,  en- 
closing the  petition  of  Andres  Castillero  to  said  Junta  de  Mineria, 
dated  May  12th,  1846,  and  state  whether  you  have  ever  seen  said 
communication  in  the  office  of  the  Minister  of  Justice  and  Instruction 
aforesaid,  and  if  it  contains  any  minute  made  on  it  by  the  Minister  of 
Justice  ;  if  yea,  whether  you  have  made  a  copy  of  that  minute,  and 
can  produce  it. 

Answer. — I  have  seen  the  original  communication  made  by  said 
Junta,  enclosing  said  petition  of  Castillero,  of  which  a  copy  appears 
here  in  the  document  exhibited  "  A.,  P.  L."  I  saw  it  in  the  office  of 
the  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations,  to  which  the  mining  business  had 
been  transferred,  as  I  before  said. 

When  I  saw  the  said  papers,  in  November,  1854, 1  saw  on  the  mar- 
gin of  said  communication,  a  decree  bearing  the  rubric  of  the  Minister 
of  Justice,  which  does  not  appear  in  the  copies  here  presented,  but 
which  I  then  copied,  and  the  true  copy  I  then  made  I  now  produce  to 
be  filed  herewith,  marked  "  B.,  P.  L."  as  an  Exhibit  to  this  deposi- 
tion. 

The  reason  why  said  marginal  writing  does  not  appear  in  this  copy 
"  A.,  P.  L."  is  because  it  was  merely  a  minute  of  the  document  or 
memorandum  of  the  decree. 

6th  Question. — Look  at  the  document  now  shown  to  you  marked 
"  C.,P.  L."  as  an  exhibit  to  this  deposition  and  state  whether  you  are 
acquainted  with  the  hand  writing  of  Castillo  Lanzas ;  if  yea,  by  what 
means  you  are  acquainted  with  it,  and  state  whether  his  signature  in 
said  document  is  genuine,  and  also  what  office  said  Lanzas  held  at  the 
date  of  said  document. 

Answer. — I  know  said  Lanzas'  hand  writing.  I  have  seen  him  write 
and  have  seen  various  communications  from  him,  and  this  is  his  gen- 
uine signature  in  this  document.  He  was  Minister  of  Foreign  Rela- 
tions on  May  23d,  1846,  the  date  of  said  document. 

7th  Question. — While  you  held  any  official  position  under  the  Mex- 
ican Government,  was  any  communication  ever  addressed  to  you, 
relating  to  ihe .  mine  of  New  Almaden  in  Upper  California ;  if  yea, 
what  action  aid  you  take"  on  said  communication  ? 

Answer. — While  I  was  Minister  of  Interior  and  Exterior  Relations 
in  November  1846,  I  received  a  communication  from  the  Junta  de 
Mineria,  relating  to  said  mine.  I,  as  Minister  aforesaid,  reported  said 
communication  to  the  Constituent  Congress  and  recommended  it  in  a 
memorial  of  December  of  the  same  year. 

8th  Question. — Have  you  in  your  possession  the  report  you  made 
on  that  occasion  ?   if  yea,  please  to  produce  it. 

Answer. — I  have  so  much  of  my  report  as  relates  to  this  matter 
3 


18 

and  produce  it  here  marked  "  D.,  P.  L."  as  an  Exhibit  to  this  deposi- 


tion. 


This  Exhibit  is  in  printed  form. 

The  paragraphs  marked  with  a  pen  on  pages  65  and  66,  embrace 
what  I  said  about  the  matter  in  my  report. 

The  written  note  on  page  118  relates  to  the  document  marked 
"  Num  52." 

The  two  documents  marked  with  a  pen  in  the  margin  of  page  136 
relate  to  the  subject  of  said  Castillero's  mine. 

The  marked  paragraphs,  partly  marked  with  lead  and  partly  with 
ink,  on  page  146,  relate  to  the  same  matter. 

I  made  these  marginal  marks  and  annotations  myself,  to  show  what 
portions  of  the  Document  relate  to  this  particular  subject. 

This  document  is  taken  out  of  a  large  bound  Volume  which  em- 
braced my  whole  report  as  Minister  of  Relations,  upon  all  subjects 
pertaining  to  my  office,  with  accompanying  documents.  I  took  this 
portion  for  convenience,  because  it  embraced  everything  which  my  said 
report  contained  relating  to  said  Almaden  mine  or  Castillero's  connec- 
tion therewith. 

The  book  I  speak  of  is  a  ponderous  volume. 

9th  Question. — Who  was  president  in  Mexico  when  this  grant 
"C.,  P.  L."  was  made? 

Answer. — General  Paredes  was  President  of  the  Republic  from 
January  to  July  of  the  year  1846. 

10th  Question. — State  what  were  the  powers  of  Paredes  as  Presi- 
ident — Were  they  Constitutional  or  not  ? 

Answer. — His  powers  were  not  Constitutional,  they  were  Extraor- 
dinary. The  Organic  Bases  of  1843  had  been  suppressed  by  revolu- 
tion and  there  was  no  Constitution  during  the  sway  of  Paredes.  In 
August  1846,  the  Federal  Constitution  of  1824  was  re-established, 
and  Gen  Salas  came  into  power  by  another  revolution. 

11th  Question. — Had  Paredes  the  power  to  grant  vacant  lands  in 
the  Territories,  by  virtue  of  his  Extraordinary  powers  as  President,  or 
by  the  Colonization  Law  of  18th  August  1824  ? 

Answer. — In  my  opinion  Paredes  had  the  power  to  grant  such  lands 
under  and  by  virtue  of  the  laws  of  August  16th  1824,  because  in  the 
16th  article  of  that  law  the  President  was  authorized  to  adopt  mea- 
sures, and  arrange  the  affairs  of  Colonization  in  the  Territories. 

In  consequence  of  the  Revolution,  Paredes  became  clothed  with 

absolute  power  embracing  the  Legislative  as  well  as   the   Executive, 

and  all  other  functions  of  the  Government. 

_  12th  Question.— Was   it   customary  for  the   President  of  Mexico 

11'  to  sign  documents,  or  was  it  done  by  the  proper  Secretary  ? 


19 

• 

Answer. — It  would  depend  upon  the  character  of  the  document. 
Commissions,  Laws  of  the  Republic  and  appointments  were  signed 
by  the  President.  Communications  to  the  Governors  of  Departments 
and  to  other  high  functionaries  were  signed  by  the  Ministers,  and  not 
by  the  President. 

The  President  did  not  sign  grants  of  the  public  lands  because  those 
matters  were  communicated  to  the  Governors  of  the  Departments. 

13th  Question. — In  what  light  do  regard  this  document  "  C,  P.  L." 
Answer. — It  is  a  communication  from  the  Minister  of  Relations  to 
the  Governor  of  California  It  is  substantially  the  approval  by  the 
President  through  the  Minister,  of  the  petition  of  Castillero,  and  it 
contains  a  grant  of  the  land  or  rather  the  consent  of  the  President 
that  the  land  should  be  granted.  And  I  therefore  consider  it  a  title 
to  the  land. 

(13th  Question  and  answer  objected  to  by  the  IT.  S.  Associate  Law 
Agent.) 

Cross-Examined  by  U.  S.  Associate  Law  Agent. 

1st  Question. — Have  you  any  interest  by  way  of  commission  or  oth- 
erwise, depending  in  any  manner  upon  the  confirmation  of  this  claim 
by  the  Board  of  U.  S.  Land  Commissioners  ? 

Answer. — I  have  no  interest  of  any  kind  in  the  matter. 

2nd  Question. — Is  said  Andres  Castillero  still  living ;  if  yea,  where  ; 
and  what  is  his  profession  ? 

Answer. — He  is  living.  He  has  a  hacienda  about  4  leagues  from 
the  City  of  Mexico,  on  which  he  resides. 

3rd  Question. — Has  said  Castillero  recently  held  any  Civil  or  Mili- 
tary office  in  Mexico  ? 

Answer. — I  do  not  know  that  he  holds  any  office  at  present,  nor  do 
I  know  of  his  having  held  any  recently.  I  think  he  was  a  deputy  in 
the  Mexican  Congress  along  about  1846.     It  was  before  1846. 

4th  Question. — Do  you  know  whether  said  Castillero  ever  returned 
to  Upper  California  after  May  23,  1846  ? 

Answer. — I  do  not  know  whether  he  did  or  not. 

5th  Question. — Have  you  compared  verbatim  the  papers  "A.,  P.  L" 
with  the  originals  of  which  they  purport  to  be  copies ;  and  when  did 
you  last  see  said  originals  ? 

Answer. — I  have  compared  them  verbatim.  The  last  time  I  saw 
the  originals  was  when  I  compared  them,  which  was  between  the  11th 
and  15th  days  of  November,  1854. 


20 

6th  Question. — Did  you  ever  see  said  originals  prior  to  that  time  ? 

Answer. — I  saw  them  in  1846,  because  I  was  then  Minister  and 
was  obliged  to  examine  all  the  acts  of  Paredes  for  the  purpose  of  lay- 
ing them  before  the  Mexican  Congress. 

7th  Question. — Was  the  minister  of  which  you  have  spoken  "B.,  P. 
L  "  on  the  document  in  the  Archives  when  you  first  saw  it  ? 

Answer.— Yes,  it  was  there  written  when  I  first  saw  said  document 
in  1846. 

8th  Question. — Do  you  know  of  any  grant  of  land  in  Upper  Califor- 
nia having  been  made  by  the  General  Government  of  Mexico  since  the 
enactment  of  the  Colonization  law  of  1824  ? 

Answer. — I  do  not. 

9th  Question. — Does  the  Supreme  Government  of  Mexico  ever 
grant  the  fee  simple  title  in  mines,  or  were  they  not  denounced  under 
the  mining  laws  ? 

Answer. — A  title  to  a  mine  could  not  be  obtained  without  the  de- 
nouncement by  the  applicant  under  the  mining  laws.  So  long  as  the 
requirements  of  the  mining  laws  were  complied  with  the  applicant  for 
a  title  could  hold  and  enjoy  a  full  and  complete  title  in  the  mine 
forever,  according  to  the  ordinances. 

When  I  say  his  title  was  forever,  I  mean  so  long  as  he  complied  with 
the  mining  laws. 

(9th  question  and  answer  both  objected  to  as  relating  to  written 
laws,  and  incompetent  to  prove  them  in  this  way.) 

i 
10th  Question. — Were  not  continued  occupation  and  possession,  as 
well  as  the  payment  of  the  usual  stipend,  required  by  law  ? 

(10th  Question  same  objection  as  to  9th.) 

Answer. — At  this  moment  I  do  not  remember  the  provisions  of  the 
mining  law. 

11th  Question — Does  this  minute  or  memorandum  "  B.,  P.  L."  bear 
any  date  in  the  original,  of  the  time  when  it  was  written  ? 

Answer.— It  has  the  date  of  May  20th,  1846,  in  the  original  in  the 
Archives,  which  I  understood  to  be  the  time  when  said  marginal  de- 
cree was  entered;  the  inverted  commas  or  quotation  mark  in  this  copy 
are  my  own  and  do  not  appear  in  the  original. 

12th  Question. — What  action  did  the  Mexican  Congress  take  upon 
your  report,  or  upon  the  part  thereof  relating  to  this  matter  of  Castil- 
lero  ? 

Answer. — The  Congress  took  no  action  upon  it. 


21 

13th  Question. — Were  the  actions  of  Paredes  as  President  ever  re- 
cognized or  approved  by  the  Mexican  Congress  ? 

Answer. — Some  of  his  acts  have  been  approved  and  some  disap- 
proved, as  Congress  thought  proper,  and  his  acts  until  they  were  dis- 
approved were  recognized  as  valid. 

14th  Question. — Was  it  not  required  that  his  acts  should  be  sub- 
mitted to  Congress  before  they  could  acquire  validity  ? 

Answer. — No,  it  was  not  necessary.  There  was  no  express  provi- 
sion to  that  effect  in  the  plan  which  the  Government  established. 

That  was  the  plan  of  San  Luis  Potosi,  of  the  latter  part  of  1845. 

Instead  of  saying  there  was  no  express  provision  &c,  I  would  wish 
to  say,  I  do  not  remember  of  any  express  provision  to  that  effect. 

I  therefore  repeat  that  all  the  acts  of  Paredes  were  deemed  valid 
till  expressly  annulled  or  disapproved  by  the  Government. 

15th  Question. — Was  it  not  usual  for  officers  acting  under  extraor- 
dinary powers,  to  sign  the  acts  done  by  themselves  ? 

Answer. — No  ;  the  President  only  signed  usuallysuch  documents  as 
I  have  before  discriminated,  even  when  invested  with  Extraordinary 
powers. 

16th  Question. — Was  not  the  Geary  Grant  of  lands  on  the  Isthmus 
of  Tehuantepec,  made  under  extraordinary  powers,  'and  was  it  not 
signed  by  the  President  ? 

Answer. — I  do  not  know  whether  the  President  signed  that  Grant 
or  not. 

17th  Question. — You  have  expressed  in  your  examination  in-chief 
the  opinion  that  Paredes  had  the  power  to  grant  lands  under  the  Colo- 
nization law  of  August  1824,  because  by  the  16th  Article  of  that  law, 
the  President  was  authorized  to  adopt  measures  of  Colonization — Did 
Paredes  ever  promulgate  any  regulations  for  the  colonizations  of  lands 
in  the  territories  under  said  16th  Article  ? 

Answer. — I  do  not  remember  of  his  issuing  any  such  regulations. 

18th  Qnestion. — Do  yon  know  of  Paredes  ever  having  made  any 
change  or  departure  from  the  ordinance  of  November  1828,  carrying 
out  the  decree  of  August  1824  ? 

Answer. — I  do  not  know  of  Paredes  ever  having  made  any  change 
or  departure,  such  as  the  question  suggests. 

19th  Question. — Was  not  the  document  "C,  P.L."  a  recommenda- 
tion to  the  Governor  of  California  in  favor  of  Castillero,  to  make  him  a 
grant  according  to  the  laws  and  dispositions  regulating  colonization  in 
the  territory  of  Upper  California  ? 

Answer. — It  is  not  a  recommendation.  It  is  an  order  given  to  the 
Governor  of  California  by  the  Supreme  Government  of  Mexico  to 
give  Castillero  the  possession  of  the  sitios  mentioned  in  the  documents 
which  had  been  granted  to  him  (Castillero)  on  the  20th  May,  1816. 


99 


20th  Question. — Look  at  the  8th  proposition  in  the  petition  of  Cas- 
tillero  in  "  A.,  P.  L  "  which  is  referred  to  in  "  C,  P.  L."  and  state 
whether  said  proposition  was  not  to  have  granted  to  him  two  square 
leagues  as  a  colonist,  and  agreeably  to  the  Colonization  Laws. 

Answer. — My  opinion  is  that  the  two  sitios  were  to  be  granted  to 
the  petitioner  for  the  benefit  of  the  wood  on  the  land ;  my  individual 
opinion  is,  the  grant  was  made  to  encourage  the  developement  of  the 
mine. 

Re-Examined  by  Claimants'  Counsel. 

1st  Question.— Look  at  the  document  signed  by  Isidro  R.  Gondra 
in  "  A.,  P.  L"  near  the  end  of  said  Exhibit,  and  state  whether  you 
know  said  Gondra's  handwriting  ;  if  yea,  your  means  of  knowledge,  and 
whether  his  signature  thereto  is  genuine. 

Answer. — I  know  said  Gondra's  handwriting;  I  have  seen  him  write, 
and  this  is  his  genuine  signature. 

(This  first  question  objected  to  by  the  U.  S.  Law  Agent  as  incom- 
petent to  prove  wrhat  the  document  states.) 

J.  M.  LAFRAGUA. 

Subscribed  and  sworn  to  before  me  this  30th  day  of  January,  A.  D. 
1855* 

PETER  LOTT, 

Commissioner. 


Filed  in  Office  Jan'y  30,  1855. 


GEO.  FISHER,  Sec. 


DEPOSITION  OF  JOSE  NORIEGA. 

UNITED  STATES   OF  AMERICA,  \  »« 
State  of   California,  j 

San  Francisco,  March  19,  1855. 
This  day  came  before  me,  Peter  Lott,  Commissioner  for  taking  testi- 
mony to  be  used  before  the  Board  of  U.  S.  Land  Commissioners  in 
said  State,  Jose'  Noriega  a  witness,  on  behalf  of  the  claimant  Andres 
Castillero  in  case  No  366,  on  the  docket  of  said  Board,  and  said  wit- 


23 

ness  being  sworn  deposed  in   Spanish,  which  was  interpreted  by  the 
interpreter  to  said  Board,  as  follows  : 

The  U.  S.  Law  Agent  is  present. 

Questions  by  Mr.  Peachy  for  Claimant. 

1st  Question. — What  is  your  name,  age  and  residence  ? 

Answer. — My  name  is  Jose  Noriega— my  age  55  years,  my  resi- 
dence in  San  Jose,  Santa  Clara  County,  California. 

2nd  Question. — Examine  the  Document  entitled  "  Posesion  de  la 
Mina  de  Sta  Clara — Ano  de  1845  "  the  same  which  has  just  been 
exhibited  to  Frank  Lewis,  the  Deputy  Recorder,  who  has  just  testified 
in  this  case,  and  also  to  Antonio  Sunol,  and  state  whether  you  are 
acquainted  with  the  signature  of  Andres  Castillero,  and  your  means 
of  knowledge,  and  also  whether  the  petitions  of  said  Castillero  in 
said  doenments  dated  respectively  November  22d,  1845,  and  Decem- 
ber 3d,  1845,  both  made  to  the"  Senor  Alcalde  de  1°  Nominacion  del 
Pueblo  de  San  Jose*  Guadalupe  "—making  known  the  discovery  of  a 
mine  containing  gold,  silver,  and  quicksilver,  and  signed  by  the  genu- 
ine signatures  respectively  of  said  Castillero.        ' 

Answer. — I  am  acquainted  with  said  Castillero's  signature  ;  I  have 
often  seen  him  write,  and  I  believe  these  both  to  be  his  genuine  signa- 
tures. 

3d  Question. — Look  at  the  next  wTriting  in  said  document,  purport- 
ing to  be  a  record  of  the  action  of  the  Alcalde  on  the  above  named 
petition,  whereby  he  gave  Juridical  possession  to  the  said  Andres  Cas- 
tillero of  3000  varas  of  land  in  all  directions  around  the  mine,  elated 
December  1845,  signed  Antonio  Maria  Pico,  and  by  the  assisting  wit- 
nesses, Antonio  Sunol  and  Jose*  Noriega,  and  state  whether  said  signa- 
tures are  genuine  and  whether  you  was  one  of  the  witnesses,  and 
whether  said  document  is  genuine  and  made  at  the  time  it  bears 
date. 

Answer. — I  know  the  signatures  of  said  Pico  and  Sunol,  and  I  saw 
them  sign  this  document,  and  I  was  one  of  the  assisting  witnesses  and 
signed  my  name  here,  and  the  document  was  made  and  executed  at 
the  time  it  bears  date  and  is  a  genuine  document. 

4th  Question. — State  whether  or  not  you  know  of  Andres  Castillero 
working  said  Quicksilver  mine  before  the  Americans  took  possession 
of  the  country  ;  if  yea,  how  long  did  he  work  it,  and  if  he  took  out 
Quicksilver  how  much  he  got  ? 

Answer. — I  know  he  worked  said  mine  before  the  Americans  took 
the  country.     I  do  not  know  how  long  he  worked,  but  I  know  he  had 


24 

at  my  house  one  arroba  (25  pounds)  of  Quicksilver,  which  he  gave  to 
me.  I  saw  a  great  deal  which  he  got  out,  he  had  a  great  many  jars 
full  but  I  cannot  say  how  much  there  was. 

Cross-examined  by  U.  S.  Law  Agent. 

1st  Question. — How  do  you  know  said  Castillero  worked  the  mine, 
and  state  to  what  extent  was  it  worked  by  him  ? 

Answer. — I  saw  him  working  the  mine  ;  he  had  some  eight  or  ten 
hands  at  work  there,  and  he  had  gone  ten  or  twelve  varas  deep  with 
the  work. 

That  was  in  December  1845  He  had  then  just  commenced  the 
work. 

2nd  Question.— Did  you  ever  see  it  again  before  the  Americans 
came  in  July  1846  ? 

Answer. — I  saw  it  two  or  three  times  in  that  interval. 

3d  Question.— Was  the  mine  on  private  or  public  lands  ? 

Answer. — It  was  the  property  of  Jose  Reyes  Berreyesa. 

3d  Question  objected  to  as  irrelevant  and  incompetent. 

JOSE   NORIEGA. 

Subscribed  and  sworn  to  before  me  on  this  19th  day  of  March  A.  D. 
1855 


Filed  in  Office  March  19,  1855 


PETER  LOTT, 

Commissioner. 


GEO.  FISHER,  Sec. 


DEPOSITION  OF  ANTONIO  SITftOL. 

UNITED  STATES  OF  AMERICA,  )  ™ 
State  of  California.  j  fefe* 

San  Francisco  March  19,  1855 

This  day  came  before  Peter  Lott  Commissioner  for  taking  testimony 

to  be  used  before  the  Board  of  U.  S.  Land  Commission  in°said  State, 

Antonio  Sufiol  a  witness  on  behalf  of  the  claimant  Andres  Castillero 

in  case  No.  366,  on  the  Docket  of  said  Board,  and  said  witness  being 


25 

sworn  deposed  in  Spanish,  which  was  interpreted  by  the  interpreter  to 
said  Board  as  follows  : 

The  U.  S.  Law  Agent  is  present. 

Questions  by  Mr  Peachy  for  Claimant. 

1st  Question.— What  is  your  name,  age  and  residence  ? 

Answer.— My  name  is  Antonio  Sunol,  my  age  57  years,  my  resi- 
dence at  the  Pueblo  of  San  Jose,  Santa  Clara  County,  California. 

2nd  Question. — Examine  the  document  entitled  "  Posesion  de  la 
Mina  de  Sta  Clara, — Ano  de  1845  "  the  same  which  has  just  been 
exhibited  to  Frank  Lewis,  who  has  now  given  his  deposition  in  this 
case,  and  state  whether  you  are  acquainted  with  the  signatures  of 
Andres  Castillero,  and  your  means  of  knowledge,  and  whether  the 
petitions  of  said  Castillero  in  said  document,  dated  respectively  No- 
vember 22d,  1845  and  December  3d,  1845  both  made  to  the  "  Senor 
Alcalde  de  la  Nomination  del  Pueblo  de  San  Jose*  Guadalupe  "  mak- 
ing known  the  discovery  of  a  mine  containing  gold,  silver,  and  quick- 
silver, are  written  in  a  handwriting  with  which  you  are  acquainted, 
and  whether  they  are  signed  by  the  genuine  signature  respectively  of 
said  Castillero. 

Answer. — I  am  acquainted  with  the  signature  of  said  Andres  Cas- 
tillro.  I  have  seen  him  write,  and  these  his  signatures  to  these  two 
petitions  are  his  genuine  signatures. 

The  first  in  order  as  they  stand  in  said  document,  and  as  referred 
to  in  this  interrogatory,  is  written  (the  body  of  it)  in  the  handwriting 
of  one  Gutierrez,  whom  I  have  seen  write,  he  was  a  teacher  of  chil- 
dren in  my  house,  and  the  second  petition,  although  appearing  to  be  in 
different  hand,  I  think  may  also  have  been  written  by  him,  for  he 
varied  his  hand  very  much  in  consequence  of  his  sometimes  drinking 
too  much. 

3d  Question. — Look  at  the  next  writing  in  said  document,  purport- 
ing to  be  a  record  of  the  action  of  the  Alcalde  on  the  above  named 
petitions,  whereby  he  gave  Juridical  possession  to  the  said  Andres 
Castillero  of  3000  varas  of  land  in  all  directions  around  the  mine,  dated 
December  1845,  signed  Antonio  Maria  Pico  and  by  the  assisting  wit- 
nesses Antonio  Sunol  and  Jose*  Noriega,  and  state  whether  the  said 
signatures  are  genuine,  and  if  yea,  how  you  know  it,  and  whether  you 
were  one  of  said  assisting  witnesses,  and  whether  said  document  is 
genuine  and  was  made  at  the  time  it  purports  to  have  been  made. 

Answer. — I  know  the  signatures  of  said  Pico  and  Noriega  I  have 
4 


26 

often  seen  them  write  and  these  are  their  genuine  signatures,  and  I 
was  one  of  said  witnesses,  and  this  is  my  own  signature. 

The  document  is  genuine,  and  was  made  at  the  time  it  bears  date. 

4th  Question. — Examine  now  the  paper  marked  "  A.,  P.  L."  pur- 
porting to  contain  a  copy  of  the  documents  of  which  you  have  been 
testifying,  to  wit ;  the  said  two  petitions,  and  the  action  of  the  Alcalde 
thereon,  and  state  whether  it  is  a  true  copy  of  said  original  papers 
and  how  you  know  it. 

Answer. — This  is  a  true  copy  of  said  original  document.  I  have 
just  now  compared  it  carefully  with  Mr.  Lewis,  the  Deputy  Recorder, 
who  has  just  been  testifying  in  this  case,  and  also  with  Jose'  Noriega 
who  looked  over  at  the  same  time,  while  we  were  comparing  said  copy 
"A.,  P.  L"  with  said  original  in  said  Lewis'  custody. 

5th  Question  — Was  there  ever  to  your  recollection  in  the  Depart- 
ment of  Upper  California  a  mining  deputation  (diputacion  de  mineria) 
or  special  court  or  body  of  men  having  jurisdiction  in  matters  relating 
to  the  discovery  and  denouncement  of  mines  and  other  things  apper- 
taining thereto  ? 

Answer. — $o,  I  never  knew  of  any  such  deputation  or  special  tri- 
bunal. If  there  had  been  such  I  think  I  should  have  known  it.  I 
have  lived  38  years  in  San  Jose',  and  was  four  or  five  years  Sub-Pre- 
fect there,  and  never  knew  of  any  such  special  court  or  deputation. 

6th  Question. — State  whether  or  not  you  know  of  Andres  Castillero 
working  said  quicksilver  mine  before  the  Americans  took  possession  of 
the  Country  in  July  1846  ;  if  yea,  how  long  did  he  work  it  and  how 
much  quicksilver  he  got  out  of  it  ? 

Answer. — I  knew  of  said  Castillero  working  said  mine  before  the 
event  and  time  mentioned,  and  I  know  that  Jie  took  out  a  great  quan- 
tity of  quicksilver.  I  was  there  and  saw  him  working  the  mine,  and 
he  had  about  60  or  70  Quintals  (each  Quintal  is  100  pounds)  of  quick- 
silver which  I  saw  at  one  time. 

7th  Question. — Has  the  mine  been  worked  since  the  time  the 
Americans  took  possession  ? 

Answer. — Yes,  it  has  been  worked  all  the  time  since,  or  at  least  I 
do  not  know  of  any  interruption  of  the  work  since  that  time. 

8th  Question. — What  was  the  name  of  the  mine  when  it  was  first 
denounced,  and  what  is  it's  present  name  ? 

Answer. — It  used  to  be  called  the  mine  of  Santa  Clara,  but  of  late 
years  it  has  been  called  the  mine  of  Nuevo  Almaden,  since  they  got 
such  a  quantity  of  quicksilver  from  it. 

They  gave  it  this  name  from  a  celebrated  mine  in  Spain. 


27 
Cross-Examined  by  U.  S.  Law  Agent. 

1  Question. — When  did  you  first  know  Castillero  to  work  the  mine; 
how  often  since  have  you  known  it  worked,  and  to  what  extent  ? 

Answer. — I  first  knew  him  to  work  it  about  November  1845.  I 
have  often  seen  it  worked  since  that  time:  perhaps  fifty  times.  I  can- 
not say  exactly,  but  I  have  seen  it  a  great  many  times. 

2nd  Question. — State  if  you  know  when  said  Castillero  left  Califor- 
nia for  Mexico,  and  whether  he  ever  returned. 

Answer. — The  last  time  he  left  for  Mexico  was  in  1846,  and  I  do 
not  know  of  his  having  returned. 

ANTONIO  SUKTOL. 

Subscribed  and  sworn  to  before  me  on  this  19th  day  of  March  1855 

PETER  LOTT, 

Commissioner. 

Filed  in  Office  March  19, 1855 

GEO.  FISHER,  Secy. 


DEPOSITION  OF  FRANK  LEWIS. 

UNITED  STATES  OF  AMERICA, 

State  op  California. 

San  Francisco,  March  19,  1855. 
This  day  came  before  Peter  Lott,  Commissioner  for  taking  testimony 
to  be  used  before  the  Board  of  U.  S.  Land  Commissioners  in  said  State, 
Frank  Lewis,  a  witness  on  behalf  of  the  Claimant,  Andres  Castillero, 
in  Case  No  366,  on  the  Docket  of  said  Board,  and  said  witness  being 
sworn,  testified  as  follows  : 

The  U.  S.  Law  Agent  is  present. 

Questions  by  Mr.  Peachy  for  Claimant. 

1st  Question. — What  is  your  name,  age  and  residence  ? 

Answer. — My  name  is  Frank  Lewis,  my  age  about  27  years,  my 
residence  in  San  Jose',  Santa  Clara  County,  California. 

2nd  Question. — State  what  office  you  hold  in  California  and  how 
long  you  have  held  the  same. 


28 

Answer. — I  am  Deputy  County  Recorder  of  Santa  Clara  County. 
I  was  appointed  about  the  15th  of  August  1855,  and  have  been  in 
that  position  ever  since  till  the  present  time. 

3d  Question. — Look  at  the  paper  now  shown  to  you  entitled  "  Pos- 
sesion de  la  Mina  de  Sta  Clara,  Ano  de  1845  ;"  state  where  you  ob- 
tained and  why  you  produced  it  before  this  Commission  ? 

Answer. — I  obtained  it  from  among  the  papers  filed  in  the  County 
Recorder's  Office  of  Santa  Clara  County,  and  I  produced  it  here  in 
obedience  to  a  subpoena  duces  tecum,  which  was  served  on  Solomon 
A.  Clark,  as  County  Recorder  of  said  County,  a  few  days  since  by  a 
U.  S.  Deputy  Marshal.  Mr.  Clark  sent  me  as  his  Deputy  here  with 
the  papers. 

4th  Question. — Can  you  allow  me,  as  counsel  for  the  Claimants  in 
this  case,  to  keep  this  paper  and  file  it  in  the  Archives  of  this  commis- 
sion in  this  claim  ? 

Answer. — No.  I  do  not  consider  myself  authorised  to  part  with 
the  custody  of  the  document,  but  feel  bound  in  duty  to  return  it  to  the 
Recorder's  Office  of  Santa  Clara  County. 

5th  Question — Examine  now  the  paper  marked  "A.,  P.  L"  purport- 
ing to  be  a  copy  of  the  petitions  and  action  thereon  in  the  document 
of  which  you  have  been  testifying,  and  state  whether  it  is  a  true  and 
exact  copy  of  said  original  papers  and  how  you  know  it. 

Answer. — It  is  a  true  and  exact  copy.  I  know  it  from  having  care- 
fully compared  it  at  the  present  time  I  have  the  original  and  copy 
both  now  before  me. 

FRANK  LEWIS. 

Subscribed  and  sworn  to  before  me  on  this  19th  day  of  March  A. 
D.  1855 

PETER  LOTT, 

Commissioner. 

Filed  in  Office  March  19, 1855 

GEO.  FISHER,  Secy. 


DEPOSITION  OF  DOMINGO  DANGLADA. 

United  States  Land  Commission,  ) 
San  Francisco  March  21,  1855.      ) 

On  this  day,  before   Commissioner  Alpheus  Felch,  came  Domingo 


29 

Danglada,  a  witness  on  behalf  of  the  Claimant  in  Case  No  366,  who 
after  being  duly  sworn  deposed  as  follows  : 

Questions  by  Mr  Peachy,  Attorney  for  the  Claimant. 

1  Question. — Please  state  your  name,  age,  and  place  of  residence. 
Answer. — My  name  is  Domingo  Danglada,  my  age  forty  eight  years, 

and  I  reside  in  San  Francisco,  California. 

2  Question. — When  and  how  long  did  you  live  in  Mexico,  and  in 
what  business  were  you  then  engaged  ? 

Answer. — I  lived  in  Mexico  twenty  three  years,  and  was  engaged 
in  mercantile  business.  I  was  there  twenty  two  years  previous  to 
1849,  when  I  came  to  California. 

3rd  Question. — Was  you  ever  engaged  in  mining  business  in  Mexi- 
co, or  ever  have  any  interest  there  in  mines  ?  Are  you  familiar  with 
the  mode  of  registering  the  discovery  of  new  mines  or  of  denouncing 
old  ones  ?  If  yea,  state  before  what  officers  the  said  proceedings  were 
had.  What  was  the  general  usage  and  custom  in  regard  to  the  officers 
who  took  jurisdiction  in  those  matters,  and  specify  if  you  can  some 
particular  cases  in  which  registers  and  denouncements  were  made  ? 

(Mr.  Blanding  objects  to  the  3rd  Question  and  Answer.     A.  F.) 

Answer. — I  was  engaged  there  in  copper  mines,  mixed  with  gold,  in 
the  State  of  Sonora.  I  am  familiar  with  the  mode  of  registering  and 
denouncing  mines.  The  proceedings  are  before  the  Judge  of  the 
First  Instance  or  in  his  absence  before  the  Alcalde. 

I  have  known  several  instances  of  such  proceedings  in  Sonora  and 
the  States  of  Mexico.  I  know  an  instance  in  the  case  of  the  mine  in 
which  I  was  interested,  and  I  have  also  known  instances  in  Alamos, 
which  is  a  mining  district,  and  in  Hermosillo  where  also  there  are  mines. 

4th  Question. — Did  you  ever  know  in  any  of  the  Mexican  States  or 
Departments  a  tribunal  or  Court,  or  officer  specially  charged  with  min- 
ing affairs  and  who  had  jurisdiction  in  relation  to  the  discovery  or  de- 
nouncement of  mines,  or  of  disputes  concerning  them  between  individ- 
uals, or  between  individuals  and  the  Government  ? 

Answer. — I  have  never  known  any  except  the  Judge  of  the  First 
Instance,  and  in  his  absence  or  sickness  the  Alcalde.  Formerly  there 
were  tribunals  having  special  charge  of  mining  affairs,  but  since  the 
adoption  of  the  Federal  Constitution  there  have  been  none  such. 

The  jurisdiction  was  then  given  to  the  tribunals  above  mentioned. 


30 

Questions  by  Mr.  Blanding,  Associate  Law  Agent. 

1  Question. — Do  you  know  of  any  other  tribunals  in  Mexico  before 
whom  denouncements  could  be  made  ? 
Answer. — I  do  not. 

DOM0  DANGLADA. 

Subscribed  and  sworn  to  before  me  the  21st  day  of  March  1855 

ALPHEUS  FELCH, 

Commissioner. 

Filed  in  Office  March  21,  1855 

GEO.  FISHER,  Secy. 


DEPOSITION  OF  FRANCISCO  DE  LEON. 

United   States  Land   Commission  ) 
San  Francisco  March  21, 1855      ) 

On  this  day,  before  Commissioner  AlpheusFelch,  came  Francisco  de 
Leon,  a  witness  on  behalf  of  the  Claimant,  Andres  Castillero,  in  Case 
No  366,  who,  after  being  duly  sworn,  deposed  as  follows,  his  evidence 
being  interpreted  by  the  Interpreter  for  the  Board  : 

Questions  by  Mr  Peachy,  Attorney  for  Claimant. 

1  Question. — Please  state  your  name,  age  and  place  of  residence. 
Answer. — My  name  is  Francisco  de  Leon,  my  age  is  sixty-five 

years,  and  I  reside  in  San  Francisco,  California. 

2  Question. — When,  how  long,  and  in  what  parts  of  the  Mexican 
Republic  have  you  lived  ?  What  offices  have  you  held  under  the 
Mexican  Government  ?  Are  you  familiar  with  the  mode  of  register- 
ing the  discovery  of  new  mines,  and  of  denouncing  old  ones  ?  If  yea, 
state  before  what  officers  the  said  proceedings  were  had,  and  what  was 
the  general  usage  and  custom  in  regard  to  the  officers  who  exercised 
jurisdiction  over  such  matters. 

Answer. — I  lived  in  the  Mexican  Republic  all  my  lifetime  until  I 
came  to  California  in  1849. 

I  was  born  in  the  Republic  and  have  lived  in  various  parts  of  it, 
but  longer  in  Sinaloa  than  any  other. 

I  have  lived  in  Durango   and  in  Chihuahua,  which  are  mining  dis- 


31 

tricts.  I  have  held  several  Military  and  Civil  offices,  such  as  Prefect, 
Sub -Prefect,  and  Judge,  and  was  elected  as  member  of  the  Legislature 
of  Sinaloa,  but  did  not  serve  in  that  capacity.  I  am  acquainted  with  the 
mode  of  registering  the  discovery  of  new  mines  and  denouncing  old 
ones.  The  proceedings  are  held  before  the  Judge  of  the  First  In- 
stance, but  where  there  is  no  such  Judge  it  is  done  before  the  nearest 
Alcalde,  who  by  law  is  authorized  to  give  possession  of  the  same.  Ever 
since  the  establishment  of  the  Mexican  Republic,  such  proceedings 
have  been  held  before  the  officers  above  named.  Before  the  Republic 
was  established  the  Tribunal  of  mines  (Tribunal  de  Mineria)  was  es- 
tablished in  the  City  of  Mexico  and  in  the  mining  districts  there  was 
a  Deputation  having  special  jurisdiction  in  the  matters  relating  to  the 
mines  ;  but  under  the  Federal  Government  these  were  abolished,  and 
jurisdiction  in  the  registering  of  the  discovery  and  the  denouncement 
of  mines  given  to  the  Judge  of  the  First  Instance  and  to  the  Alcalde 
as  above  stated. 

(Mr  Blanding  objects  to  this  question  and  answer) 

3  Question. — Answer  the  foregoing  question  particularly  in  refer- 
ence to  the  mode  which  has  prevailed  in  the  Mexican  Republic  since 
1836,  when  the  Federal  Government  was  abolished,  and  the  New 
Constitution  establishing  the  Central  Government  adopted. 

Answer. — The  same  mode  of  proceedings  prevailed  after  the  estab- 
lishment of  the  Central  GoAernment  as  under  the  Federal,  and  it  con- 
tinued up  to  1850,  so  far  as  I  know. 

Questions  by  Mr  Blanding,  Associate  Law  Agent. 

1  Question. — Were  you  at  the  time  of  your  residence  in  Mexico  in 
any  way  interested  in  Mines  ? 

Answer. — I  worked  one  of  the  mines  there,  which  cost  me  the  loss 
of  nearly  fifty  thousand  dollars.  I  worked  also  some  others  of  less 
importance,  and  I  have  been  present  at  the  giving  possession  of  many 
mines.     From  1820  to  1822  I  was  an  enrolled  miner. 

2  Question. — Did  you  in  your  official  capacity  ever  perform  any  act 
of  registering  the  discovery  of  any  mines  ? 

Answer. — I  never'  did  ;  but  I  have  seen  possession  given  to  others. 

F.  FRANC?  DE  LEON. 

Subscribed  and  sworn  to  before  me  this  twenty-first  day  of  March 
1855 

ALPHEUS  FELCH, 

Commissioner. 


32 

Filed  in  Office  March  21,  1855 


GEO.  FISHER,  Sec. 


DEPOSITION  OF  JOSE  FERNANDEZ. 

UNITED  STATES  OF  AMERICA  )  gg 
State  of  California  J 

San  Francisco  March  28,  1855 
This  day  came  before  Peter  Lott,  Commissioner  for  taking  testimony 
to  be  used  before  the  Board  of  U.  S.  Land  Commissioners  in  said  State, 
Jose'  Fernandez,  a  witness  on  behalf  of  the  Claimant  Andres  Castillero, 
in  Case  No  366,  on  the  Docket  of  said  Board,  and  said  witness  being 
sworn,  deposed  in  Spanish,  which  was  interpreted  by  the  Interpreter 
said  Board  as  follows  : 

The  U.  S.  Associate  Law  Agent  is  present. 

Questions  by  Mr  Peachy  for  Claimant. 

1st  Question. — What  is  your  name,  age  and  residence  ? 

Answer. — My  name  is  Jos6  Fernandez,  my  age  5Q  years,  my  resi- 
dence near  Pueblo  of  San  Jos6,  California. 

2nd  Question. — When  and  how  long  have  you  lived  in  California, 
and  in  what  part  of  it  ? 

Answer. — I  have  lived  in  California  38  years,  chiefly  in  Monterey 
and  San  Francisco. 

3d  Question. — What  offices  have  you  held  in  California  ? 

Answer. — I  have  been  second  Alcalde  and  Justice  of  the  Peace  in 
the  Pueblo  of  San  Jose  several  times. 

4th  Question.^ — Was  there  any  Judge  of  First  Instance  in  or 
about  the  years  1844,  1845  and  1846,  "exercising  Jurisdiction  in  the 
district  of  San  Jos6  ? 

Answer. — There  was  no  Judge  of  First  Instance  there  in  those 
years. 

5th  Question. — Was  there  any  Judge  of  First  Instance  in  those 
years  in  the  Department  of  California,  to  your  knowledge  ? 

Answer. — There  were  none  that  I  know  of.  I  knew  one  Judge  of 
First  Instance  in  1842  or  1843.  It  was  Don  Jose'  Zenon  Fernandez, 
in  Monterey. 

6th  Question. — Did  the  Jurisdiction  of  that  Judge  Fernandez  ex- 
tend over  the  Pueblo  or  District  of  San  Jose'  at  that  time  ? 


33 


Answer. — No,  it  did  not. 


7th  Question. — Do  you  know  where  the  mine  of  Almaden,  or  the 
mine  of  Santa  Clara,  as  it  was  formerly  called,  is  situated,  being  a 
mine  situated  on  the  land  claimed  in  this  case  ? 

Answer. — Yes,  I  do. 

8th  Question. — Within  what  district,  or  under  what  jurisdiction  was 
that  mine  situated  in  the  year  1845  ? 

Answer. — It  was  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Pueblo  of  San  Jose\ 

Cross-Examined  by  U.  S.  Associate  Law  Agent. 

1st  Question. — State  accurately  the  line  which  divided  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  Monterey  from  that  of  the  Pueblo  of  San  Jose*. 

Answer. — The  jurisdiction  of  the  Pueblo  of  San  Jos£  extended  to 
the  Arroyo  de  los  Llayos,  about  eight  or  nine  leagues  southerly  from 
said  Pueblo  ;  then  next  adjoining  that  came  the  jurisdiction  of  San 
Juan  Bautiste,  and  below  that  came  the  jurisdiction  of  Monterey. 

2d  Question. — Were  these  lines  of  jurisdiction  established  by  any 
official  acts  or  legal  provisions  ? 

Answer. — They  were  the  established  limits,  by  some  Governmental 
action  ;  but  I  do  not  know  what  particular  act  or  law  fixed  them.  I 
only  know  that  they  were  generally  known  as  the  Lines. 

JOSE  FERNANDEZ. 

Subscribed  and  sworn  to  before  me,  March  28th,  1855. 

PETER  LOTT, 

Commissioner. 

Filed  in  office,  March  28th,  1855. 

GEORGE  FISHER,  Sec'y* 
5 


34 


ESPEDIENTE  OF   APPROVAL    OF  MINING  POSSESSION 

AND  GRANT. 

A.  P.  L.,  annexed   to   the    Deposition   of   Jose*    Maria   Lafragua, 
January  29th,  1855. 


Junta  de  Fomento  y  Administrate va  de  Mineria, 
Numero  573. 


EXCELENTISIMO  SENOR  : 

Habiendo  presentado  4  esta  Junta  el  Senor  Profesor  Don  Toinas 
Ramon  del  Moral  unas  muestras  de  cinabrio  de  la  Mision  de  Santa 
Clara,  en  la  Baja  California,  que  le  remite  Don  Andres  Castillero,  asi 
como  las  adjuntas  copias  con  el  objeto  de  escitar  al  Supremo  Gobierno 
para  que  se  sirva  auxiliar  tan  importante  empresa,  inmediatamente  re- 
miti6  dichas  muestras  al  Excelentisimo  Senor  Director  del  Colegio 
para  que  se  hiciesen  los  debidos  ensayos,  Su  Excelencia  con  oficio  de 
veinte  y  nueve  del  pasado  recibido  ayer  le  dice  lo  que  sigue. 

El  Senor  Don  Tomas  Ramon  del  Moral,  Presidente  de  la  Junta 
Facultativa  del  Colegio  Nacional  de  Mineria  en  oficio  de  veinte  y  cua- 
tro  del  pasado  me  dice  lo  que  sigue. 

Excelentisimo  Senor  : 

Habiendose  enterado  la  Junta  Facultativa  de  los  documentos  que 
V.  E.  le  pas6  el  veinte  y  unodel  presente  mes,  relativos  k  un  criadero 
de  cinabrio  descubierto  en  California  por  el  Sefior  Don  Andres  Castil- 
lero y  a  otro  de  Carbon  de  piedra  de  la  Bahia  de  San  Francisco,  tiene 
el  honor  de  informar  a  V.  E.  que  las  muestras  remitidas  por  dicho 
Senor  Castillero  estaban  ya  depositadas  en  el  Gabinete  de  Mineralo- 


gia  unas,  y  otras  ensayadas  por  el  Profesor  de  Quimica  Don  Manuel 
Herrera.     El  — 

(  Aiios  de  mil  ochocientos  cuarenta  ) 

SELLO  CUARTO     }  J  >     UN  REAL. 

(  mil  ochocientos  cuarenta  y  uno.   } 

— ensayo  di6  una  ley  de  treinta  y  cinco  y  medio  por  ciento  tomando  para 
hacerlo  una  mescla  de  las  diferentes  muestras,  por  que  hay  algunas  tan 
ricas  que  son  de  cinabrio  puro.  La  Junta  cree  que  el  Senor  Castillero 
se  ha  hecho  digno  por  tan  importante  discubrimiento  de  la  eficaz  protec- 
cion  del  Supremo  Gobierno  y  de  la  Junta  de  Fomento  de  Mineria,  y 
esta  persuadida,  de  que  V.  E.  interpondra  todo  su  influjo  a  fin  de  que 
este  individuo  reciba  una  prueba  de  que  el  Supremo  Gobierno  sabe 
distinguir  y  premiar  a  los  cuidadanos  que  contribuyen  a  la  prosperi- 
dad  de  la  patria. 

Reproduzco  a  V.  E.  con  este  motivo  las  concideraciones  de  mi  es- 
timacion  y  respeto. 

Y  tengo  el  honor  de  trasladarlo  a  V.  S.  S.  como  resultado  de  su 
oficio  relativo. 

La  Junta  al  incertar  a  V .  E.  la  anterior  comunicacioh  tiene  el  honor, 
de  particparle  que  ha  preguntado  ya  al  Senor  Castillero  la  clase  de 
auxilios  6  de  proteccion  de  que  necesita  para  fomento  de  su  brillante 
empresa,  felicitando  al  Supremo  Gobierno  por  un  descubrimiento  que 
si  encuentra  en  un  principio  toda  la  proteccion  que  se  merece  puede 
cambiar  completamente  el  aspecto  de  nuestra  Mineria,  libertandola  de 
la  necesidad  en  que  ha  estado  hasta  ahora  del  azogue  estrangero. 

La  Junta  con  este  motivo  aprovecha  la  oportunidad  para  partici- 

(  Anos  de  mil  ochocientos  cuarenta  J 

SELLO  CUARTO  1  J  >  UN   REAL. 

(    mil  ochocientos  cuarenta  y  uno.    ) 

par  4  Y.  E.  que  como  el  veinte  y  cuatro  del  presente  mes  termina  la 
gracia  que  concedi6  la  ley  de  cinco  pesos  de  premio  a  cada  quintal  de 
azogue  extraido  de  las  Minas  Nacionales,  han  acreditado  hasta  la 
fecha  los  mineros  de  Guadalcazar  haber  esplotado  mil  quinientos  se- 
tenta  y  cinco  quintales,  de  Diciembre  de  ochocientos  cuarenta  y  cua- 
tro, a  fin  de  Marzo  proximo  pasado,  cuyo  resultado  excede  del  calcu- 
lo  que  hasta  ahora  se  habia  hecho  de  que  la  produccion  de  este  mine- 
ral era  de  cien  quintales  mensuales. 

La  Junta  reitera  a  V.  E.  con  este  motivo  las  protestas  de  su  distin- 
guida  consideracion  y  aprecio. 


36 

Dios  y  Libertad,  Mexico,  Mayo  cinco  de  mil  ochocientos  cuarenta  y 
geis.  VICENTE  SEGURA, 

Presidente. 

Por  ocupacion  del  Secretario, 

YSIDRO  R.  GONDRA, 

Oficial  Primero. 
Excelentisimo  Seiior  Ministro  de  Justicia. 

Es  Copia ; 

Mexico,  Abril  veinte  y  tres  de  mil  ochocientos  cincuenta. 

0.  MONASTERIO. 
Secretaria  de  la  Junta  de  Fomento  de  Mineria. 

El  Seiior  Don  Andres  Castillero  comisionado  por  el  Supremo 
Gobierno  el  aiio  proximo  pasado  para  pasar  a  Californias  a  desempenar 
objeto  del  servicio  publico,  me  dice  en  cartas  escritas  de  la  Mision  de 
Santa  Clara  en  diez  y  nueve,  y  veinte  y  dos  de  Febrero  del  presente 
aiio  lo  que  sigue : 

"A  distancia  de  cinco  leguas  de  esta  Mision  al  Oeste,  he  descubierto 
y  denunciado  una  mina  abundan- 

C  Aiios  de  mil  ochocientos  cuarenta  J 

SELLO  CUARTO   <  J  >       UN  REAL 

(  mil  ochocientos  cuarenta  y  uno.   ) 

tisima  de  azogue,  y  a  confirmar  mi  verdad  remito  a  V.  S.  unas  piedras 
de  las  que  se  han  tornado  por  encima  de  la  veta ;  tambien  va  un  poco 
de  azogue  del  que  sacamos  con  la  mayor  facilidad.  El  Seiior  Director 
del  Colegio  de  Mineria  Don  Ramon  del  Moral,  ha  de  recibir  mucho 
gusto  al  ver  igualadas  las  piedras  de  Almaden.  Segun  lo  ancho  de  la 
veta  y  abundancia  de  Saca  de  metales  dentro  de  un  aiio  mediante  la 
proteccion  del  Gobierno  Supremo,  no  necesitara  la  Republica  azogue 
de  afuera. 

Remito  a  V.  algunas  frioleras  hechas  por  los  indios  del  Noroeste  y 
producidas  de  aqui ;  el  Carbon  de  piedra  es  abundantisimo  y  se  en- 
cuentra  en  las  costas  de  la  Bahia  de  San  Francisco,  de  modo  que  los 
Buques  de  Vapor  hechando  sus  embarcaciones  menores,  pueden  car- 
gar  todo  el  que  necesiten  ;  este  descubrimiento  lo  hizo  el  Seiior  Coro- 
nel  Don  Juan  Bautista  Alvarado  ;  El  crista!  de  roca  es  un  cerro  muy 
grande." 


Es  Copia : 

Mexico,  Abril  trece  de  mil  ochocientos  cuarenta  j  seis 

J  J  de  HERRERA." 

Senor  Director  del  Colegio  de  Mineria,  Don  Ramon  del  Moral. 

Mision  de-  Santa  Clara  ) 
Febrero  19,  1846.        j 

Mi  estimado  Amigo  y  Senor  que  aprecio: 

V.  sabe  lo  aficionado  que  soy  al  ramo  de  mineria  y  empeiiado  en 
encontrar  una  mina  buena  de  Azogue  he  dado  aqui  con  un  criadero 
abundantisimo ;  al  Ecselentisimo  Senor  Pre- 


SELLO    CUARTO    <  SEAL   }    UN   REAL 


sidente  remito  junto  con  esta  unas  piedras  de  cinabrio  y  un  poco  de 
azogue,  estamos  formando  un  horno  y  hemos  ensayado  dicho  metal  en 
un  canon  de  escopeta,  tapado  el  oido  con  barro  y  metido  la  boca  en 
agua,  asi  nos  ha  dado  el  treinta  por  ciento.  Yo  estimaria  &  V.  que 
se  toman  el  trabajo,  en  obsequio  del  bien  publico  que  se  ensayase  este 
metal  por  depender  de  su  trabajo  esta  operacion. 

Que  V.  y  toda  la  familia  se  conserven  buenas  y  que  mande  cuanto 
guste  k  su  afectisimo  S.  S.  Q.  B.  S.  M. 

ANDRES  CASTILLERO. 

Son  Copias. 

Mexico  Mayo  cinco  de  mil  ochocientos  cuarenta  y  seis. 

YSIDRO  R.  GONDRA 

Oficial  Primero. 
Es  Copia 

Mexico  Abril  veinte  y  tres  de  mil  ochocientos  cincuenta. 

0.  MONASTERIO. 

♦ 

EXCELENTISIMO    SENOR  : 

Por  la  nota  de  V.  E  de  cinco  del  actual  y  copias  que  se  servio* 
acompanar,  queda  enterado  con  satisfaction  el  Ecselentisimo  Senor 
Presidente  interino  de  la  Republica,  de  que  en  la  Mision  de  Santa 
Clara  de  la  Baja  California  ha  descubierto  el  Senor  Dn  Andres  Cas- 
tillero  un  criadero  de  azogue  de  escelente  calidad,  segun  los  ensayos 


38 

practicados  en  ese  Colegio,  y  de  que  se  ha  preguntado  ya  por  esa  Junta 
al  referido  Senor  Castillero,  la  clase  de  auxilios  que  necesita  para  fo- 
mento  de  su  brillante  empresa.  Asi  mismo  se  ha  impuesto  S.  E.  de  lo 
que  participa  esa  Junta  con  respecto  de  la  cantidad  de  azogue  extraida 
de  las  Minas  de  Guadalcazar,  cuyo  resultado  ha  ecsedido  al  calculo 
que  se  habia  formado. 

Lo  que  tengo  el  honor  de  decir  k  V.  E.  en  contestation,  reiterandole 
con  este  motivo  las  protestas  de  mi  consideracion  y  aprecio. 

Dios  y  Libertad. 

Mexico  Mayo  nueve,  de  mil  ochocientos  cuarenta  y  seis. 

BECERRA. 

Excelentisimo  Senor  Don  Vicente  Segura 

Presidente  de  la  Junta  de  Fomento  de  Mineria. 

Es  Copia. 

Mexico  Abril  veinte  y  tres  de  mil  ochocientos  cincuenta. 

0.  MONASTERIO. 

Junta  de  Fomento  y  Administrativa  j 
de  Mineria.  \ 

Excelentisimo  Senor: 

Como  tuvo  el  honor  esta  Junta  de  anunciar  a  V.  E.  en  cinco  del 
corriente,  bajo  de  numero  quinientos  setenta  y  tres,  el  Senor  Dn  Andres 
Castillero  le  ha  derijido  la  solicitud  que  original  tiene  el  gusto  de 
acompafiar — 

(  Ano  de  mil  ochocientos  cuarenta  ) 

SELLO  CUARTO    <  J  >         UN   REAL 

(  mil  ochocientos  cuarenta  y  uno.    ) 

k  V.  E.,  sobre  auxilios  que  necesita  para  el  nuevo  descubrimiento  de  la 
Mina  de  azogue  en  la  Mision  de  Santa  Clara  del  Departamento  de 
Californias.  La  Junta  no  duda  recomenclar  a  V.  E.  dicha  solicitud, 
porque  persuadida  de  la  grande  importancia  de  la  empresa,  la  conside- 
ra  acrcedora  k  toda  la  protection  del  Supremo  Gobierno,  cuando  por 
otra  parte  las  circumstancias  particulares  de  aquel  Departamento,  y  el 
justo  empeilo  que  ha  manifestado  el  Ecselentisimo  Senor  Presidente 
por  conservar  la  integridad  del  territorio  national,  lo  hacen  digno  de  la 
mayor  concideracion.  Por  consiguiente,  la  Junta  es  de  parecer  que  se 
le  facilite  immediatamente  al  Senor  Castillero  la  cantidad  de  cinco  mil 
pesos  en  los  terminos  que  propone  ;  que  la  autorice  para  franquear 


39 


las  retortas  y  frascos  de  fierro  de  su  pertenencia,  y  los  otros  mil  pesos 
que  podran  emplearse  en  la  construction  de  retortas,  cilindros  y  otros 
aparatos  pequenos  de  destilacion,  para  dicha  Mina.  Aunque  la  Ley 
que  autoriza  a  la  Junta  para  hacer  prestamos  en  fomento  de  los  cria- 
deros  de  azogue,  exige  el  premio  de  un  cinco  por  ciento  anual  al  cap- 
ital que  se  preste,  es  indudable  que  la  oferta  del  Senor  Castillero  de 
pagar  los  cinco  mil  pesos  con  cincuenta  quintales  de  azogue  puestos  en 
Mazatlan  a  disposition  de  la  Junta,  &  razon  de  cinco  pesos  cada  uno — 


SBLLO    CUARTO   {  SEAL    }    UN   REAL. 


Y  en  el  termino  de  seis  meses,  presta  sin  duda  mayores  ventajas  al 
fondo  que  el  indicado  interes. 

La  urgencia  que  manifiesta  el  Senor  Castillero  para  verificar  su 
marcha  a  aquel  Departmento,  y  lo  que  k  ella  pueda  contribuir  en  las 
circumstancias  presentes,  para  la  conservation  del  Territorio  National, 
es  en  concepto  de  la  Junta,  mas  que  suficiente  motivo  para  dejar  a 
e*poca  mas  oportuna  la  formacion  de  un  contrato  de  compania  6  de 
avio  para  al  fomento  de  dicha  mina. 

Resta  pues  manifestar  a  V.  E.  que  aunque  la  posecion  dada  al  Se- 
nor Castillero  por  las  autoridades  locales  de  California,  no  ha  sido  con- 
forme  a  la  ordenanza,  ues  que  se  le  han  concedido  pertenencias  en  la 
estencion  de  tres  mil  varas  que  equivalen  a  quince  pertenencias  con- 
forme  al  articulo  segundo  del  titulo  octavo,  es  preciso  considerar  que 
reune  en  su  favor  la  calidad  de  descubridor  de  un  cerro  absolutamente 
nuevo  en  que  no  habia  ninguna  mina  avierta  a  quienes  se  conceden,  en 
el  articulo  primero  del  titulo  sexto,  tres  pertenencias  continuas  dinter- 
rumpidas  y  se  hubiesen  descubierto  mas  vetas  una  en  cada  una  de 
ellas.  Reune  tambien  la  circumstancia  de  trabajar  en  compania  k  las 
que  se  concede  que  sin  perjuicio  del  derecho  que  por  el  titulo  de  des- 
cubridor tengan  cuando  lo  sean,  el  que  puedan  denunciar  cuatro  perte- 
nencias nuevas  aun  cuando  esten  contiguas  y  por  un  mismo  rumbo  ; 
pero  lo  jnas — 


SELLO    CUARTO  X  SEAL    \  UN  REAL 


digno  de  concideracion  es,  que  siendo  Californias  un  Departamento 
fronterizo  y  amagado  con  frecuencia  por  los  emigrados  de  los  Estados 
Unidos  de  America,  y  por  los  nuevos  colonos  del  Oregon,  parece  con- 
veniente  conceder  a  la  primera  mina  descubierta  en  un  Departamento 


40 

tan  basto,  mayor  numero  de  pertenencias,  lo  que  corrobora  la  razon  que 
se  encuentra  alfin  del  articulo  1°.  titulo  octavo  que  dice,  "  considerando 
que  los  limites  establecidos  en  las  minas  de  estos  Reynos  a  que  se  han  ar- 
reglado  hasta  ahoralos  de nueva  Espafia,  sonmuy  estrechas  a  proporcion 
de  la  multitud,  abundancia,  y  felicidad  de  las  venas  metalicas  que  la 
suma  bondad  del  criador  ha  querido  conceder  a  aquellas  regiones, 
ordeno  y  mando  que  las  minas  que  en  adelante  se  descubrieren  en 
veta  nueva  6  sin  vecinos  se  observan  estas  medidas. 

Segundo.  Por  el  hilo,  direccion,  6  rumbo  de  la  veta,  sea  de  oro,  de 
plata,  6  de  cualquiera  otro  metal,  concedo  a  todo  minero  sin  distincion 
de  los  descubridores  (que  ya  tienen  asignado  su  premio)  doscientas 
varas  castellanas  que  llaman  de  medir  tiradas  a  nivel.  "  Por  ultimo, 
en  el  articulo  primero,  titulo  once,  se  expresa  en  estos  terminos.  Y 
por  que  no  siendo  suficiente  el  caudal  de  uno  solo  para  grandes  em- 
presas,  puede  serlo  de  todos  los  companeros,  quiero  y  mando  se  procu- 
ren,  promuevan,  y  protijan  semijantes  companias  por  todos  los  termi- 
nos convenientes,  concedien- 


SELLO  CUARTO  \  SEAL    \  UN  REAL 


do  mf  virey  a  los  que  las  formaren  todas  las  gracias,  auxilios,  exen- 
ciones  que  fueren  de  conceder  a  juicio  y  discrecion  del  Real  Tribunal 
de  Mineria  y  sin  detrimento  del  interes  del  publico  y  de  mi  real  erario. 

En  cuanto  a  la  propiedad  que  solicita  el  Sr.  Castillero  como  colono 
de  dos  sitios  de  ganado  mayor  sobre  la  superficie  de  su  propiedad  mi- 
nera,  con  el  objeto  de  proporcionarse  la  lena  necesaria  para  el  benefi- 
cio,  la  Junta,  no  teniendo  los  conocimientos  necesarios  en  la  materia  en 
que  abunda  el  Supremo  Gobierno,  siempre  resolvera  el  Excelentisimo 
Seiior  Presidente  lo  que  creyere  mas  conveniente. 

En  tal  concepto,  al  elevar  a  V.  E.  Junta  la  solicitud  esta  del  Senor 
Castillero,  no  duda  recomendarla  muy  eficazmente  por  la  importancia  vi- 
tal de  la  empresa,  y  su  increible  trascendencia  en  el  bien  general  y  la 
prosperidad  de  la  Republica. 

La  Junta  tiene  el  honor  con  tal  motivo,  de  reiterar  a  V.  E.  las  pro- 
testas  de  su  distinguido  aprecio  y  consideracion. 

Dios  y  Libertad.  Mexico,  Catorce  de  Mayo  de  mil  ochocientos 
cuarenta  y  seis. 

VICENTE  SEGURA,  Presidente. 
Excelentisimo  Senor  Ministro  de  Justicia  6  instrucion  publica. 

Es  copia. 


41 

Mexico,  Abril  veinte  7  tres  de  mil  ochocientos  cincuenta. 

0.  MONASTERIO, 


Sello  tercero.     Cuatro  reales.     Anos  de  mil  ochocientos  cuarenta 
y  seis  y  mil  ochocientos  cuarenta  y  siete. 


Andres  Castillero,  vecino  y  minero  en  el  Departmento  de  la  Alta 
California,  ante  V.  E.  y  V.  S.  S.  como  mejor  proceda  digo ;  que 
habiendo  descubierto  en  la  Mision  de  Santa  Clara  una  mina  de 
azogue  de  leyes  tan  altas  como  seguramente  no  se  han  visto,  no 
solo  en  la  Republica  sino  acaso  en  el  mundo  entero,  como  lo  acreditan 
los  ensayos  hechos  de  orden  de  la  Junta  Facultativa  del  Colegio  de 
Mineria,  que  reuniendo  de  todas  las  muestras  que  traje,  desde  la  mejor 
hasta  la  infima,  han  dado  por  resultado  un  treinta  y  cinco  y  medio 
por  ciento,  mientras  que  ha  habido  muestras  de  las  superiores  que  deben 
producir  leyes  mucho  mayores  ;  me  veo  en  el  caso,  para  satisfacer  mis 
deseos  en  favor  del  progreso  de  mi  patria  de  aprovechar  esclusivamente 
en  favor  de  los  Mexicanos,  las  lisonjeras  y  muy  fundadas — 


Aiios  de  mil  ochocientos  cincuenta  ) 

y 

mil  ochocientos  cincuenta  y  uno. 


SELLO  CUARTO     I  y  >  UN   REAL. 


esperanzas  que  proporciona  semejante  descubrimiento.  En  tal  virtud, 
he  denunciado  y  tornado  posesion  no  solo  de  dicha  Mina  denominada 
Santa  Clara,  sino  de  una  extencion  hasta  de  tres  mil  varas  en  todas  di- 
recciones  de  dicho  punto,  he  formado  una  compania  para  su  laboreo,  he 
construido  el  tiro  y  cumplido  todas  las  condiciones  que  previene  la  or- 
denanza,  quedando  la  mina  en  frutos  con  la  notable  circumstancia  de 
que  las  muestras  que  traje  y  que  se  han  ensayado,  han  sido  extraidas  de 
la  boca. 

Muy  facil  me  habria  sido  haber  dado  todo  el  vuelo  necesario  a  la 
negociacion  admitiendo  las  repetidas  y  ventajosas  ofertas  que  se  me 
han  hecho  por  varias  casas  extrangeras  de  Californias,  pero  la  em- 
presa  no  necesita  de  semejantes  auxilios  que  resultarian  en  ventaja 
estrana,  cuando  todo  puede  ser  nacional,  y  no  he  dudado  por  lo  mis- 
mo  ocurrir  ante  V.  E.  y  V.  S.  S.  los  unicos  y  pequenos  re- 
cursos  de  que.  necesito  ;  ellos  se  reducen  4  una  corta  anticipacion  de 
cinco  mil  pesos  en  dinero,  atendidala  excesiva  escasez  de  numerario  que 
hay  en  aquel  Departmento,  y  lapronta  remision  &  el  de  retortas,  cilindros 
6 


42 

y  otros  aparatos  pequenos  de  destilacion,  asi  como  de  frascos  de  fierro 
para  el  embase  del  azogue. 

Yo  habria  propuesto  un  contrato  de  compania  k  la  Junta,  un  avio  6 
cualquier  otro  convenio,  si  tuviese  tiempo  para  poder  proporcionar  los 
datos  y  circums- 

(  Anos  de  mil  ochocientos  cincuenta  ) 

SELLO    CUARTO    <  y  ?  UN  REAL. 

(  mil  ochocientos  cincuenta  y  uno.   -) 

-tancias  que  se  requieren  para  dichos  contratos ;  pero  compromitido 
por  el  Supremo  Gobierno  k  marchar  de  esta  capital  dentro  de  algunos 
dias,  me  veo  en  el  caso  de  limitarme  k  lo  que  parece  no  presenta  dificul- 
tad,  y  abre  el  campo  a  nuevos  convenios  posteriores.  Estoy  bien  per- 
suadido  de  que  la  Junta  accedera  a  mi  solicitud  en  todo  aquello  que 
este"  en  sus  facultades,  y  que  elevara  al  Supremo  Gobierno  con  re- 
comendacion  lo  que  sea  del  resorte  de  este. 

Mis  proposiciones  pues,  son  las  siguientes. 

Primera — La  Junta  en  el  acto  aprobar  et  convenio,  me  entregara  una 
libranza  contra  una  casa  de  Comercio  de  Mazatlan,  valiosa  de  cinco  mil 
pesos. 

Segunda — Por  mi  parte  me  comprometo  k  situar  en  dicho  puerto  k 
los  seis  meses  de  haber  salido  de  el,  cincuenta  quintales  de  azogue  a 
razon  de  cien  pesos  cada  uno,  que  remitire'  de  las  primeras  extracciones 
con  absoluta  preferencia  k  todo  otro  compromiso, 

Tercera — La  Junta  mandara  poner  k  mi  disposicion  antes  de  mi 
salida  de  la  capital,  las  ocho  retortas  de  fierro  que  tiene  en  su  oficina  y 
todos  los  frazcos  para  azogue  que  se  hallan  en  la  negociacion  de  Tasco, 
en  estado  de  uso,  y  por  ultimo  entregard  al  Senor  Don  Tomas  Ramon 
del  Moral,  mi  apoderado,  las  cantidades  que  importen  las  retortas,  cilin- 
dros,  y  otra  clase  de  aparatos  pequenos  que  se  mande  hacer  para  la 
negociacion  hasta  la  cantidad  de  mil  pesos. 

(  Anos  de  mil  ochocientos  cincuenta  ) 

SELLO   CUARTO    <  y  (    UN  REAL. 

(    mil  ochocientos  cincuenta  y  uno.   ) 

Cuarta — Las  retorfris  de  la  Junta  las  recibire*  por  el  precio  de  su 
costo  y  los  frazcos  que  escoja,  k  dos  pesos  cada  uno  conforme  k  su 
avaluo. 

Quinta — El  importe  liquido  de  dichas  retortas  y  frazcos,  y  el  de  las 
cantidades  que  se  hayan  entregado  al  Senor  Moral  lo  devolvere'  en  el 
termino  de  un  afio  de  este  convenio,  asi  como  el  premio»de  la  libranza 
contra  Mazatlan,  en  azogue  puesto  en  dicho  puerto  al  precio  de  cien 
pesos  quintal ;  pero  si  la  Junta  quisiere  tomar  una  6  mas  accionesen 


43 

la  mina,  quedara  en  parte  de  la  cantidad  correspondiente  a  una  6  mas 
barras. 

Sexta — Entretanto  que  se  aregla  la  compania,  durante  un  ano  con- 
tado  desde  el  dia  en  que  se  apruebo  este  convenio,  y  satisfechos  ya  los 
cinco  mil  pesos  de  que  habla  la  proposicion  primera,  preferir^  a  la 
Junta  en  la  venta  del  azogue  puesto  en  Mazatlan  a  razon  de  cien  pesos 
quintal. 

Setima — La  Junta  representara  al  Supremo  Gobierno  la  necesidad 
de  que  apruebe  la  posesion  que  se  me  ha  dado  de  la  mina  por  las  au- 
toridades  locales  de  Californias,  en  los  mismos  terminos  en  que  hoy  la 
tengo. 

Octava — Ygualmente  le  representara  las  ventajas  de  que  como 
colono  se  me  concedan  dos  sitios  de  ganado  mayor  sobre  el  terreno  de 
mi  posesion  minera  con  el  ojeto  de  poderme  aprovecharde  lasmaderas 
para  mis  quemas. 

Novena — Al  cumplimiento  de  este  contrato  hipoteco  la  misma  mina 
y  todas  sus  pertenencias. 

El  que  subscribe  sugeta  &  la  deliberacion  de  la  Junta  esta  solicitud 
la  que  acceptada  se  podra  elevar  a  contrato  formal  y  legalizar  del  modo 
mas  conveniente.   . 

Dios  y  Libertad. 

Mexico,  doce  de  Mayo  de  mil  ochocientos  cuarenta  y  seis. 

ANDRES  CASTILLERO. 

Es  copia.     Mexico,  Abril  veinte  y  tres  de  mil  ochocientos  cincuenta. 

0.  MONASTERIO. 


EXCELENTISIMO  SENOR : 

Habiendo  dado  cuenta  el  Excelentisimo  Senor  Presidente  interino 
de  la  Republica  con  la  nota  de  V.  E.  de  catorce  del  presente  k  que  se 
sirvi6  acompanar  con  recomendacion  la  solicitud  del  Senor  Dn.  An- 
dres Castillero  para  el  fomento  de  la  mina  de  azogue  que  ha  descubi- 
erto  en  la  Mision  de  Santa  Clara  en  la  Alta  California ;  se  ha  servido 
S.  E.  aprobar  en  todas 


(  Anos  de  mil  ochocientos  cincuenta  } 
(    mil  ochocientos  cincuenta  y  uno. 
sus  partes  el  convenio  celebrado  con  dicho  individuo,  para  principiar 


SELLO   CUARTO    \  J  >  UN   REAL. 


44 

la  esplotacion  de  dicho  mineral,  y  con  esta  fecha  se  hace  la  comunica- 
cion  que  corresponde  al  Ministerio  de  Relaciones  exteriores  y  gober- 
nacion  para  que  libre  las  ordenes  oportunas  por  lo  relativo  a"  lo  que  con- 
tiene  la  octava  proposicion  k  la  concesion  de  terrenos  en  aquel  depar- 
tamento. 

Reitero  &  V.  E.  las  protestas  et  cetera. 

Dios  y  Libertad. 

Mexico  Mayo  veinte  de  mil  ochocientos  cuarenta  y  seis. 

BECERRA. 

Excelentisimo  Senor  Don  Vicente  Segura,  Presidente  de  la  Junta 
de  Fomento  de  Mineria. 


La  anterior  se  comunic6  &  este  Ministerio  de  Relacions  diciend6 : 
Y  tengo  el  honor  de  incertarlo  a  V.  E.  k  fin  de  que  por  lo  respec- 
tivo  a  la  solicitud  del  Senor  Castillero,  a"  que  ha  tenido  4  bien  acceder 
el  E.  S.  Presidente  interino  sobre  que  como  colono,  se  le  conceda  dos 
sitios  de  ganado  mayor,  sobre  el  terreno  de  su  posecion  minera  se  sirva 
V.  E.  librar  las  ordenes  de  que  se  trata. 

Reitero  &  V.  E.  &c,  fecha  ut  supra. 

BECERRA. 

E.  S.  Ministro  de  Relaciones  exteriores  y  Gobernacion. 

Es  copia. 

Mexico  Abril  veinte  y  tres  de  mil  ochocientos  cincuenta. 

0.  MONASTERIO. 


_  El  infrascrito  Ministro  de  Relaciones  Interiores  y  Exteriores.  Cer- 
tifico  :  que  aunque  en  la  comunicacion  que  la  Junta  de  Fomento  y  Ad- 
ministrativa  de  Mineria  derigi6  en  cinco  de  Mayo  de  mil  ochocientos 
cuarenta  y  seisal  E.  S.  Ministro  de  Justicia  relativa  a  la  mma  de 
cinabrio  descubierta  en  California  por  Dn.  Andres  Castillero,  se  escribio 
que  ella  esta  situada 


45 

(  Anos  de  mil  ochocientos  cihcuenta  ) 

SELLO   CUARTO    <  J  [   UN  REAL. 

(  mil  ochocientos  cincuenta  y  uno.    ) 

en  la  Mision  de  Santa  Clara,  en  la  Baja  California,  y  lo  mismo  se  dice 
en  la  contestacion  del  Ministerio,  fecha  nueve  del  citado  mes,  de  cuyos 
documentos  se  dieron  copias  en  veinte  y  tres  de  Abril  ultimo  al  Senor 
Eustaquio  Barron ;  este  es  un  equivoco,  pues  dicha  mina  y  los  terrenos 
que  se  adjudicaron  a  Castillero,  estan  en  territorio  de  la  Alta  Califor- 
nia, cuya  concesion  declar6  legitima  y  aprob6  el  Supremo  Gobierno 
despues.  Y  doy  el  presente  certificado  para  los  fines  que  convengan 
a  pedimento  del  espresado  Senor  Barron,  en  Mexico,  a  treinta  de  Ju- 
lio de  mil  ochocientos  cincuenta. 

LACUNZA. 


ESCRITO. 

Eustaquio  Barron  de  esta  vecindad,  ante  V.  como  mejor  de  derecho 
proceda,  y  salvas  las  protestas  legales,  digo  :  que  &  -mi  derecho  con- 
viene  tener  un  testimonio  autorizado  del  contenido  que  se  espresa  en  los 
documentos  que  con  la  solemnidad  debida  acompano  en  once  fojas 
utiles ;  y  al  efecto,  A.  V.  suplico  se  sirva  mandar  que  por  el  actuario 
se  compulse  el  referido  testimonio,  sinnecesidad  de  citacion  por  no  ha- 
ber  a  quien  competa,  y  hecho  se  me  entregue  con  los  originates  que 
presento,  pues  todo  es  conforme  a  Justicia,  que  imploro  jurando  con  lo 
necesario  et  cetera. 

EUSTAQUIO  BARRON. 


AUTO. 


Mexico,  Agosto  diez  y  nueve  de  mil    ) 
ochocientos  cincuenta.  j 

Por  presentado  con  los  documentos  que  acompanan  :  como  lo  pide, 
y  obre  los  efectos  qua  haya  lugar.  Lo  proveyo  y  firm6  el  Senor  Dn. 
Antonio  Madrid  Juez  de  Letras  del  ramo  civil  en  el  Distrito  Federal : 
doy  fe\ 

A.  MADRID. 

Ramon  de  la  Cueva. 


46 

Concuerdan  las  copias  y  escrito  insertos  con  sus  originates  que  de- 
volvi  al 

(  Anos  de  mil  ochocientos  cincuenta  1 

SELLO   CUARTO    <  J  >   UN  REAL. 

(  mil  ochocientos  cincuenta  y  uno.  ) 

Senor  interesado  ;  de  donde  se  compuls6  el  presente  por  duplicado  en 
virtud  de  lo  mandado  en  el  auto  tambien  incerto,  en  la  cuidad  de  Mex- 
ico &  veinte  y  dos  de  Octubre  de  mil  ochocientos  cincuenta  y  va  en  diez 
y  seis  fojas,  la  primera  y  su  correspondiente  del  sello  primero  y  las 
demas  del  cuarto,  siendo  testigos  &  su  saca  y  correcion  Don  Juan  A. 
del  Toro,  Don  Juan  Zavala  y  Don  Felipe  de  Jesus  Moctezuma  de  esta 
vecindad. 

Doy  fe*,  es  caso  de  vale  testado  el  diez  no  vale. 

RAMON  DE  LA  CUEVA. 

E.  N.  y  Pco. 


Los  que  subscribimos  certificamos  y  damos  fe*  que  Don  Ra- 

SAnos  de  mil  ochocientos  cincuenta  ) 
y  >  UN    REAL, 

mil  ochocientos  cincuenta  y  uno.   ) 

mon  de  la  Cueva,  por  quien  estd  autorizado  el  anterior  testimonio  es 
escribano  Nacional  y  Publico  del  numero  de  esta  cuidad,  fiel  y  de  en- 
tera  confianza  por  lo  que  a  cuantos  instrumentos  legaliza  se  les  ha  dado 
y  da  entera  fe*  y  credito  en  juicio  y  fuera  de  $1  Y  para  constancia 
ponemos  la  presente  sellado  con  el  de  nuestro  Nacional  Colegio  en  Mex- 
ico, 4  veinte  y  seis  de  Octubre  de  mil  ochocientos  cincuenta. 

t  t  t 

F.V.  M.A.  C.L. 

FERMIN  VILLA,    MIGUAL  ARISTIQUI,  C.  LANDGRAVE. 


47 

[  No.  839.  ] 

Consulate  op  the  U.  S.  of  America,  ) 
Mexico,  January  8th,  1851.  j 

I,  the  undersigned,  Consul  of  the  United  States  of  America  for  the 
City  of  Mexico,  hereby  certify  that  the  signatures  of  Fermin  Villa, 
Miguel  Arsitiqui  and  Cresenco.  Landgrave,  subscribed  to  the  preced- 
ing certificate,  are  in  the  proper  handwriting  of  said  persons  respec- 
tively, the  same  as  used  by  them  in  all  their  respective  official  acts, 
who  are  all  well  known  to  me,  and  were  at  the  time  of  subscribing  the 
same,  duly  authorized  Notaries  Public  for  the  City  of  Mexico,  and 
that  all  their  official  acts  are  entitled  to  full  faith  and  credit  as  such. 

Register  F  ;  folio  30. 

Fees,  $4. 

In  testimony  whereof,  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand,  and  affixed  the 
Consular  Seal  the  day  and  year  first  before  written. 

(  Consular  ^j  JOHN  BLACK, 

(^    Seal.    J  Consul. 


Ysidro  Rafael  Gondra,  Secretario  de  la  Junta  Directiva  y  Admin- 
istrativa  de  Mineria : 

Certifico  que  del  espediente  que  obra  en  la  Secretaria  de  Mineria 
relativo  al  denuncio  posesion  y  adjudicacion  a  D.  Andres  Castillero  de 
la  mina  de  cinabrio  que  existe  en  la  Alta  California  Uamada  el  Nuevo 
Almaden  consta  que  por  informe  de  la  Junta  Directiva  el  Supremo 
Gobierno  de  la  Republica,  en  virtud  de  lo  pedido  por  el  Senor  Castil- 
lero fue  espedido  a  este  el  titulo  legal  6  testimonio  respectivo  k  su  ad- 
quisicion  conforme  a  las  ordenanzas  del  ramo  y  que  esa  concesion  al 
mencionado  Castillero  fue'  de  una  pertenencia  de  tres  mil  varas  sobre 
el  piano  de  dicha  mina  de  azogue  para  trabajarla  en  esa  estencion  y  de 
dos  sitios  de  ganado  mayor  contiguos  a  la  referida  pertenencia  para 
sacar  de  ellos  la  lena  y  demas  aprovechamientos  indispensables  y  uti- 
les para  los  trabajos  de  la  mina,  cuyas  concesiones  particulares  y  espe- 
ciales  creyo  conveniente  hacer  el  Supremo  Gobierno  por  el  favor  que 
las  leyes  disponen  que  se  imparta  a  los  descubridores  de  minas  de 
azogue  procediendo  en  ello  de  conformidad  con  lo  informado  por  la 
Junta  Directiva. 

Y  a  pedimento  de  los  propictarios  del  Nuevo  Almaden  doy  la  pre- 


48 


sente  certification  refireindome  al  espediente  enunciado,  de  que  todo 
constacomo  va  referedo  yla  firmo  en  Mexico,  k  23  de  Enerode  1851. 


YSIDRO  R.  GONDRA. 

Srio. 


El  infrascrito,  oficial  mayor  del  Ministerio  de  Relaciones  Interiores 
y  Exteriores : 

Certifico  que  la  firma  que  antecede  del  Sr.  Don  Ysidro  Rafael 
Gondra,  Secretario  de  la  Junta  Directiva  y  Administrate  de  Mi- 
neria,  es  ligitima  y  la  misma  que  acostumbra  en  sus  actos  oficiales. 

Mexico,  Febrero  26,  de  1851. 

JOSE  MARIA  ORTIZ  MONASTERIO. 


I  hereby  certify  that  the  above  is  the  signature  of  Don  Jose  Maria 
Ortiz  Monasterio,  under  secretary  of  State  of  foreign  affairs  of  the 
Mexican  Republic. 

PERCY  W.  DOYLE. 

Her  Britannic  Majesty's  charge*  d'affaires  in  the  Republic 
of  Mexico. 

Mexico,  February  26th,  1851. 


of  Mexico. 


No.  1075.  Consulate  of  the  U.  S.  of  America,  ) 

Mexico,  February  26th,  1851.      \ 

I,  the  undersigned  Consul  of  the  United  States  of  America  for  the 
city  of  Mexico,  hereby  certify,  that  the  signatures  of  Jose"  Maria 
Ortiz  Monasterio  and  Percy  W.  Doyle  subscribed  to  the  foregoing 
certificates,  are  in  the  proper  hand-writing  of  the  said  persons  respec- 
tively, the  same  as  used  by  them  in  their  several  official  acts ;  who  are 
well  known  to  me,  and  were  at  the  time  of  subscribing  their  respective 
names  a3  follows,  to  wit,  the  first — First  Clerk  of  the  Department  of 
Interior  and  Foreign  Relations  of  the  Mexican  Government ;  and  the 
second,  Her  Britanic  Majesty's  charge*  d'affaires  near  the  aforesaid 
Government ;  and  that  all  their  several  acts  are  entitled  to  full  faith 
and  credit  as  such  respectively. 


49 

Register  F,  folio  75.     Fees,  $4. 

^^^^       In  testimony  whereof  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and 
N  j        affixed  the  consular  seal   the  day  and  year  above 
seal.    !         written. 

JOHN  BLACK, 

Consul. 


Filed  in  Office  Jan.  30,  1855. 


GEO.  FISHER,  Secy. 


"D."    TRANSLATION. 
(   Seal  for  the  years    ) 

STAMP   FIRST         <  \    EIGHT  DOLLARS 

(   1850  and  1851.   J 
Junta  for  the  Encouragement  and  Ad-  ) 

MINISTRATION  OF  MlNING,  No.  573.  j 

Most  Excellent  Sir  :    '  . 

Professor  Don  Jomas  Ramon  del  Moral  having  presented  to  this 
Junta  some  specimens  of  Cinnabar  from  the  Mission  of  Santa  Clara  in 
Lower  California,  which  Don  Andres  Castillero  sends  him,  together 
with  the  annexed  copies,  with  the  object  of  inciting  the  Supreme  Gov- 
ernment, that  it  may  be  pleased  to  aid  so  important  an  enterprize ;  said 
specimens  were  immediately  sent  to  His  Excellency  the  Director  of 
the  College  that  the  proper  assays  might  be  made. 

His  Excellency  in  an  official  communication  of  the  twenty-ninth  of 
last  month,  received  yesterday,  says  that  which  follows : 

Seilor  Don  Jomas  Ramon  del  Moral,  President  of  the  Junta  Facul- 
tativa  of  the  National  College  of  Mining,  in  an  official  communication 
of  the  24th  ulto.,  says  to  me  as  follows : — Most  Excellent  Sir  :  The 
Junta  Facultativa  having  examined  the  documents  which  Your  Excel- 
lency referred  to  it  on  the  twenty-first  of  the  present  month  relative 
to  a  deposit  of  Cinnabar  discovered  in  California  by  Seilor  Don  Andres 
Castillero  and  another  of  coal  on  the  Bay  of  San  Francisco,  has  the 
honor  to  inform  your  Excellency  that  the  specimens  sent  by  said  Seilor 
Castillero,  were  deposited,  some  in  the  Mineralogical  Cabinet,  and 
others  assayed  by  the  professor  of  Chemistry,  Don  Manuel  Herrera. 

The  assay  gave  a  ley  of  twenty-five  and  a  half  per  cent.,  a  mean  of 
the  different  specimens  having  been  taken  to  make  it  (the  assay),  for 
there  are  some  so  rich  that  they  are  pure  cinnabar. 

The  Junta  believes  that  Seilor  Castillero  has  by  such  an  important 
7 


50 

discovery  made  himself  deserving  of  the  efficacious  protection  of  the 
Supreme  Government  and  of  the  Junta  for  the  Encouragement  of 
Mining,  and  is  persuaded  that  Your  Excellency  will  interpose  all  your 
influence,  to  the  end  that  this  individual  may  receive  a  proof  that  the 
Supreme  Government  knows  how  to  distinguish  and  reward  those  cit- 
izens who  contribute  to  the  prosperity  of  the  country. 

With  this  motive  I  repeat  to  Your  Excellency  the  considerations  of 
my  esteem  and  respect. 

And  I  have  the  honor  to  transmit  it  to  Your  Excellencies  as  the 
result  of  your  despatch  in  "  the  matter." 

The  Junta,  on  enclosing  the  foregoing  communication  to  Yrour  Excel- 
lency, has  the  honor  to  inform  you  that  it  has  already  asked  Sefior 
Castillero  what  kind  of  aid  or  protection  he  needs  for  the  encourage- 
ment of  his  brilliant  enterprise,  congratulating  the  Supreme  Govern- 
ment on  a  discovery  which,  if  it  meets  from  the  beginning  with  the 
protection  it  deserves,  may  change  completely  the  aspect  of  our  min- 
ing, freeing  it  from  the  necessity,  in  which  it  has  been  until  now?  of 
foreign  quicksilver. 

With  this  motive,  the  Junta  takes  advantage  of  the  opportunity  to 
inform  Your  Excellency  that,  as  on  the  twenty-fourth  of  this  month 
the  favor  terminates  which  the  law  guarantees  of  five  dollars  premium 
on  each  hundred  weight  of  quicksilver,  attracted  from  the  mines  of  the 
nation,  the  miners  of  Guadalcazar  have  proven  that  they  have  taken 
out  one  thousand  five  hundred  and  seventy-five  quintals  from  Decem- 
ber, eighteen  hundred  and  forty-four,  to  the  end  of  March  last,  which 
result  exceeds  the  calculation,  which  until  now  has  been  made,  that 
the  product  of  this  mineral  was  a  hundred  quintals  per  month. 

The  Junta  on  this  occasion  reiterates  to  Your  Excellency  the  assur- 
ances of  its  distinguished  consideration  and  esteem. 

God  and  Liberty. 
Mexico,  May  5,  1846. 

(Signed)  VICENTE    SEGURA, 

'  President. 

The  secretary  being  occupied. 

(Signed)  YSIDRO   R.    GONDRA, 

First  Clerk. 
To  his  Excellency  the  Minister  of  Justice. 

It  is  a  copy. 

Mexico,  April  23d,  1850. 

(Signed)  0.   MONASTERIO. 


51 

Office  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Junta,  ) 
for  the  enoouragement  of  mlning.       j 

Senor  Don  Andres  Castillero,  commissioned  last  year  by  the  Su- 
preme Government  to  pass  to  California  on  an  object  of  public  service, 
tells  me,  in  letters  written  from  the  Mission  of  Santa  Clara  on  the 
nineteenth  and  twenty-second  of  February  of  this  year,  that  which 
follows : 

At  the  distance  of  five  leagues  from  this  mission,  to  the  west,  I 
have  discovered  and  denounced  a  very  abundant  mine  of  quicksilver ; 
and  to  confirm  my  truth,  I  send  you  some  ores  of  those  which  have 
been  taken  from  the  top  of  the  vein — a  little  quicksilver  also  goes, 
which  we  have  taken  out  with  the  greatest  facility. 

The  Senor  Director  of  the  College  of  Mining,  Don  Ramon  del  Moral, 
will  receive  much  pleasure  in  seeing  equalled  the  ores  of  Almaden. 

From  the  width  of  the  vein,  and  the  abundance  of  metals  taken  out 
within  one  year,  with  the  protection  of  the  Supreme  Government,  the 
Republic  will  not  need  quicksilver  from  foreign  parts. 

I  send  you  some  trifles  made  by  the  Indians  of  the  Noith  "West,  and 
products  of  this  country.  Coal  is  very  abundant,  and  is  found  on  the 
coasts  of  the  Bay  of  San  Francisco,  so  that  the  steamers  sending  out 
their  small  boats  may  load  all  that  they  require.  This  discovery  was 
made  by  Colonel  Don  Juan  Bautista  Alvarado.  The  rock  Crystal  is 
a  very  large  "  hill." 

Copy. 

Mexico,  April  13,  1846. 

(Signed)  J.  J.  de  HERRERA. 

Senor  Director  of  the  College  of  Mining,  Don  Ramon  del  Moral. 


Mission  of  Santa  Clara,  \ 
February  19,  1846.         \ 

My   ESTEEMED   FRIEND   AND   APPRECIATED    SlR : 

You  know  how  devoted  I  am  to  the  branch  of  mining,  and  intent 
upon  finding  a  mine  of  quicksilver.  I  have  discovered  a  most  abund- 
ant deposit.  With  this  I  send  to  His  Excellency,  the  President,  some 
ores  of  Cinnabar,  and  a  little  quicksilver.  We  are  forming  a  furnace, 
and  assayed  said  metal  in  a  musket  barrel,  the  touch-hole  stopped  with 
clay,  and  the  muzzle  put  in  water.  In  this  manner  it  has  given  us 
thirty  per  cent.     I  would  esteem  it  a  favor  if  you  would  take  the 


52 

trouble,  for  the  sake  of  the  public  good,  to  cause  this  metal  to  be 
assayed,  as  this  operation  depends  upon  your  work. 

May  you  and  all  the  family  retain  your  health,  and  as  much  as  you 
please  command  your  obedient  servant,  &c,  &c. 

(Signed)  ANDRES  CASTILERO. 

The  above  are  copies. 

Mexico,  May  5,  1846. 

(Signed)  YSIDRO  R.  GONDRA, 

First  Clerk. 

The  above  is  a  copy.  : 

Mexico,  April  23, 1850. 

(Signed)  0.  MONASTERIO. 


Most  Excellent  Sir: 

By  your  Excellency's  note  of  the  5th  inst.  and  copies  which  you 
were  phased  to  transmit  therewith,  His  Excellency,  the  President,  ad 
interim,  of  the  Republic,  learns  with  satisfaction  that  in  the  Mission  of 
Santa  Clara,  of  Lower  California,  Senor  Don  Andres  Castillero  has 
discovered  a  deposit  of  quicksilver  of  excellent  quality,  according  to 
the  assays  made  in  that  college,  and  that  said  Senor  Castillero  has 
been  asked  by  that  Junta  what  kind  of  assistance  he  needs  to  encour- 
age his  brilliant  enterprise. 

His  Excellency  is  likewise  informed  of  tha£  which  the  Junta  reports 
relative  to  the  quantity  of  quicksilver  extracted  from  the  mines  of 
Guadalcazar,  the  result  of  which  has  exceeded  the  calculation  which 
was  made. 

This  is  what  I  have  the  honor  to  say  to  your  Excellency  in  answer, 
repeating  to  you  with  this  opportunity  the  assurance  of  my  considera- 
tion and  esteem. 

God  and  Liberty. 

Mexico,  May  9,  1846. 

(Signed)  BECERRA. 


53 

His  Excellency  Don  Vicente  Segura, 

President  of  the  Junta  for  the  Encouragement  of  Mining. 

Copy. 

Mexico,  April  23d,  1850. 

(Signed)  •     0.  MONASTERIO. 


Junta  for  the  Encouragement  and  \ 
Administration  op  Mining.         j 
Most  Excellent  Sir  : 

As  this  Junta  had  the  honor  to  inform  your  Excellency  on  the  5th 
inst.  in  Number  573,  Senor  Don  Andres  Castillero  has  directed  to  it 
a  petition,  the  original  of  which  it  has  the  pleasure  to  transmit  here- 
with, upon  the  assistance  which  he  needs  for  the  new  discovery  of  the 
Quicksilver  mine  in  the  Mission  of  Santa  Clara,  in  the  Department  of 
Californias. 

The  Junta  has  no  hesitation  in  recommending  said  petition  to  your 
Excellency,  for,  being  persuaded  of  the  great  importance  of  the  enter- 
prise, it  considers  it  entitled  to  all  the  protection  of  the  Supreme  Gov- 
ernment, and  also  the  particular  circumstances  of  that  Department, 
and  the  just  desire  which  his  Excellency,  the  President,  has  shown  to 
preserve  the  integrity  of  the  national  territory,  render .  it  worthy  of 
the  greatest  consideration. 

The  Junta  is  consequently  of  opinion  that  there  should  be  imme- 
diately furnished  to  Senor  Castillero  the  sum  of  five  thousand  dollars 
in  the  terms  he  proposes,  that  it  should  be  authorized  to  furnish  him 
with  the  iron  retorts  and  flasks  belonging  to  it,  and  the  other  thousand 
dollars,  which  can  be  employed  in  the  construction  of  retorts,  cylinders 
and  other  small  apparatus  of  distillation  for  said  mine.  Although  the 
law  authorizing  the  Junta  to  make  loans  for  the  encouragement  of  de- 
posits of  quicksilver,  exacts  a  premium  of  five  per  cent,  per  annum  on 
the  capital  loaned,  it  cannot  be  doubted  that  the  offer  of  Senor  Castil- 
lero to  pay  the  five  thousand  dollars  with  fifty  quintals  of  quicksilver 
placed  in  Mazatlan  at  the  disposition  of  the  Junta,  at  the  rate  of  one 
hundred  dollars  each,  and  in  the  term  of  six  months,  offer  greater  ad- 
vantages to  the  fund  than  said  interest. 

The  haste  shown  by  Senor  Castillero  to  put  in  execution  his  journey 
to  that  Department,  and  that  which  his  so  doing  may  contribute  under 
present  circumstances  towards  the  preservation  of  the  national  terri- 
tory, is,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Junta,  a  sufficient  motive  to  leave  until  a 
more  opportune  occasion  the  formation  of  a  contract  of  partnership  or 
of  "  avio  "  (for)  the  encouragement  of  said  mine. 


54 

It  remains  then  to  show  to  jour  Excellency,  that  although  the  pos- 
session given  to  Senor  Castillero,  by  the  local  authorities  of  California, 
has  not  been  in  conformity  with  the  ordinance,  inasmuch  as  there 
have  been  granted  him  "  pertenencias  "  to  the  extent  of  three  thousand 
varas,  which  are  equivalent  to  fifteen  "pertenencias"  agreeable  to  the 
second  article  of  the  eighth  title,  yet  it  is  necessary  to  consider  that 
he  has  in  his  favor  the  qualification  of  discoverer  of  an  absolutely  new 
hill  in  which  there  was  no  mine  open,  and  to  such  there  is  granted,  in 
the  first  article  of  the  sixth  title,  three  pertenencias,  either  continuous 
or  interrupted,  and  if  he  shall  have  discovered  other  veins  one  (per- 
tenencia)  in  each  of  them. 

He  has  also  in  his  favor  the  circumstances  that  he  works  it  in  com- 
pany with  others,  to  whom  there  is  granted  that,  without  prejudice  to 
the  right  which  they  may  have  by  the  title  of  discoverers  when  they 
are  such,  they  may  denounce  four  new  "  pertenencias,"  even  though 
they  are  contiguous,  and  in  the  same  direction ;  but  that  which  is 
most  worthy  of  consideration  is  that  Californias,  being  a  frontier 
Department,  and  frequently  threatened  by  the  emigrants  from  the 
United  States  of  America,  and  by  the  new  colonists  of  Oregon,  it 
seems  proper  to  grant  to  the  first  mine,  in  a  Department  so  extensive, 
a  greater  number  of  "  pertenencias,"  which  view  is  corroborated  by 
the  reason  found  at  the  end  of  the  eighth  Tit.,  Article  1st,  which 
says :  "  Considering  that  the  Courts  established  in  the  mines  of  these 
kingdoms,  to  which  those  of  New  Spain  have  until  now  been  made  to 
conform,  are  very  contracted  in  proportion  to  the  multitude,  abund- 
ance, and  richness  of  the  metallic  veins,  which  the  goodness  of  the 
Creator  has  pleased  to  grant  to  those  regions,  I  order  and  command 
that  in  mines  which  may  hereafter  be  discovered  in  a  new  vein,  or 
without  neighbor,  these  measurements  be  observed. 

2nd.  Along  the  thread,  direction,  or  course  of  the  vein,  be  it  of 
gold,  silver,  or  any  other  metal,  I  grant  to  every  miner,  without  dis- 
tinction of  the  discoverers,  (who  have  their  reward  already  assigned 
to  them),  two  hundred  Castillian  varas,  called,  'varas  de  medir,' 
measured  on  a  level." 

Lastly,  in  the  first  article,  eleventh  title,  there  are  expressed  these 
terms  : 

"  And  because  the  capital  of  a  single  individual  may  not  be  sufficient 
for  great  undertakings,  while  that  of  all  the  partners  may  be,  I  will  and 
command  that  such  companies  be  encouraged,  promoted,  and  protected 
by  all  convenient  measures.  My  Viceroy  granting  to  those  who  may 
form  such,  every  favor,  aid,  and  exemption,  which  can  be  granted 
them  according  to  the  judgment  and  discretion  of  the  Royal  Tribunal 
of  Mines,  and  without  detriment  to  the  public  or  to  my  Royal 
Treasury." 

In  reference  to  the  ownership  of  two  square  leagues  which  Senor 


55 

Castillero  solicits,  as  a  Colonist,  upon  the  surface  of  his  mining  prop- 
erty, for  the  purpose  of  supplying  himself  with  the  firewood  necessary 
for  the  reduction  of  ores  (beneficio,)  not  having  the  necessary  informa- 
tion on  the  matter,  of  which  the  Supreme  Government  has  abundance, 
His  Excellency,  the  President,  will  decide  as  he  may  think  proper. 

In  this  view  the  Junta,  in  sending  up  to  your  Excellency  the  peti- 
tion of  Senor  Castillero,  has  no  hesitation  in  recommending  it  very 
efficaciously  on  account  of  the  vital  importance  of  the  undertaking,  and 
its  incredible  influence  upon  the  general  good  and  prosperity  of  the 
Republic. 

The  Junta  has  the  honor,  on  this  occasion,  to  repeat  to  your  Excel- 
lency the  assurances  of  its  distinguished  esteem  and  consideration. 

God  and  Liberty.     . 

Mexico,  May  14,  1846. 

(Signed)  VICENTE  SEGURA, 

President. 

His  Excellency  the  Minister  of  Justice  of  Public  Instruction. 
Copy. 
Mexico,  April  23d,  1850. 

(Signed)  .        0.   MONASTERIO. 


Stamp  Third,  Four  Reales. 

For  the  years  Eighteen  Hundred  and  Forty-Six  and  Eighteen  Han- 
dled and  Forty-Seven. 

I,  Andres  Castillero,  resident  and  miner  in  the  Department  of  Up- 
per California,  before  your  Excellency  and  your  Honors,  as  I  best  may 
proceed,  say  :  that  having  discovered  in  the  Mission  of  Santa  Clara  a 
mine  of  quicksilver  of  leys  richer  certainly  than  was  ever  seen  before, 
not  only  in  the  Republic,  but  perhaps  in  all  the  world,  as  shown  by 
the  assays  made  by  order  of  the  Junta  Facultativa  of  the  College  of 
Mining,  which — some  of  all  the  specimens  I  brought  being  mixed  from 
the  best  to  the  worst — have  given  a  result  of  thirty  five  and  a  half  per 
cent.,  while  there  have  been  specimens  of  the  best  kind  whiclynust 
produce  much  greater  "leys.     I  see  myself  in  a  condition  to  satisfy  my 


56 

desires  in  favor  of  my  country,  of  benefitting  exclusively  Mexicans,  by 
the  flattering  and  well  founded  hopes  which  such  a  discovery  offers. 

In  virtue  of  this,  I  have  denounced  and  taken  possession  not  only 
of  said  mine  named  Santa  Clara,  but  also  of  an  extent  of  three  thous- 
and varas  in  all  directions  from  said  points.  I  have  formed  a  com- 
pany to  work  it,  I  have  constructed  the  pit,  and  complied  with  all  the 
conditions  prescribed  by  the  ordinance  ;  the  mine  yielding  ore  with  the 
notable  circumstance  that  the  specimens  which  I  brought,  and  which 
have  been  assayed,  have  been  taken  out  of  the  mouth.  It  would  have 
been  very  easy  for  me  to  have  given  the  necessary  extension  to  the 
negociation  by  accepting  the  repeated  .and  advantageous  offers  which 
have  been  made  me  by  several  foreign  houses  in  California  ;  but  as 
the  undertaking  does  not  require  that  kind  of  assistance,  which  would 
result  in  advantage  to  foreigners,  when  it  may  be  entirely  national, 
I  have  not  for  that  reason  hesitated  to  apply  to  your  Excellency,  and 
your  Honors,  to  obtain  the  small  and  only  resources  which  I 
need. 

These  are  reduced  to  a  small  advance  of  five  thousand  dollars  in 
money,  in  consideration  of  the  excessive  scarcity  of  coin  in  that  de- 
partment, and  the  quick  remittance  to  it  of  retorts,  cylinders,  and 
other  small  distilling  apparatus,-  and  also  iron  flasks  for  bottling  up  the 
quicksilver. 

I  would  have  proposed  a  contract  of  partnership  to  the  Junta,  an 
avio,  or  some  other  agreement,  if  there  had  been  time  to  be  able  to 
furnish  the  proofs  and  details  which  would  be  required  for  said  con- 
tracts ;  but  being  compromised  by  the  Supreme  Government  to  leave 
this  Capital  within  a  few  days,  I  find  it  necessary  to  restrict  myself  to 
that  which  appears  to  present  no  difficulty,  and  which  may  open  a  way 
to  our  future  agreement. 

I  am  well  persuaded  that  the  Junta  will  accede  to  my  request,  so  far 
as  may  be  within  its  power,  and  that  it  will  send  up  to  the  Supreme 
Government  with  a  recommendation  that  which  may  require  the  deci- 
sion of  the  latter. 

My  propositions,  then,  are  the  following  : 

First. — The  Junta,  in  the  act  of  approving  the  agreement,  will  give 
me  a  draft  for  five  thousand  dollars  on  some  mercantile  house  in  Ma- 
zatlan. 

Second. — On  my  part,  I  bind  myself  to  place  in  said  port,  within 
six  months  after  leaving  it,  fifty  quintals  of  quicksilver,  at  the  rate  of 
one  hundred  dollars  each,  which  I  will  send  from  the  first  taken  out, 
with  absolute  preference  over  every  other  engagement. 

Third — The  Junta  will  order  that  there  be  placed  at  my  disposition 
before  leaving  the  Capital,  the  eight  iron  retorts  which  it  has  in  its 
office,  and  all  the  quicksilver  flasks  which  can  be  found  in  the  negotia- 
tion of  Tasco,  which  are  fit  for  use  ;  and  lastly,  it  will  deliver  to  Senor 


57 

Don  Tomas  Ramon  del  Moral,  my  attorney,  the  sums  to  pay  for  the 
retorts,  cylinders,  and  other  kinds  of  small  apparatus,  which  may  be 
ordered  to  be  made  for  the  negotiation,  to  the  amount  of  one  thousand 
dollars. 

Fourth. — I  will  receive  the  retorts  of  the  Junta  at  cost  price,  and 
the  flasks  which  I  may  select  at  two  dollars  a  piece,  agreeably  with 
their  valuation. 

Fifth. — The  asertained  value  of  said  retorts  and  flasks,  and  that  of 
the  sums  which  may  be  delivered  to  Seiior  Moral,  I  will  return  in  the 
term  of  one  year  from  this  agreement,  and  also  the  premium  on  the 
draft  on  Mazatlan,  in  quicksilver,  placed  in  said  port  at  the  price  of 
one  hundred  dollars  the  quintal ;  but  if  the  Junta  should  wish  to  take 
one  or  more  "  acciones  "  in  the  mine,  it  shall  be  left  as  a  part  pay- 
ment of  the  sum  corresponding  to  one  or  more  "  barras." 

Sixth. — While  the  company  is  being  formed,  during  the  period  of 
one  year,  counted  from  the  date  on  which  this  agreement  shall  be  ap- 
proved, and  the  five  thousand  dollars  spoken  of  in  the  first  proposition 
being  paid,  I  will  give  the  preference  to  the  Junta  in  the  sale  of  quick- 
silver placed  in  Mazatlan,  at  the  rate  of  one  hundred  dollars  the  quin- 
tal. 

Seventh. — The  Junta  shall  represent  to  the  Supreme  Government 
the  necessity  of  approving  the  possession  which  has  been  given  me  of 
the  mine  by  the  local  authorities  of  California,  in  the  same  terms  as 
those  in  which  I  now  hold  it. 

Eighth. — It  shall  also  represent  the  advantage  of  there  being  grant- 
ed to  me,  as  a  colonist,  two  square  leagues  upon  the  land  of  my  min- 
ing possession,  with  the  object  of  being  able  to  use  the  wood  for  my 
business. 

Ninth. — For  the  compliance  of  this  contract  I  pledge  the  mine 
itself  and  all  its  appurtenances. 

The  subscriber  subjects  this  request  to  the  deliberation  of  the  Jun- 
ta, which  if  accepted,  may  be  made  into  a  formal  contract,  and  made 
legal  in  the  most  proper  manner. 

God  and  Liberty. 

Mexico,  May  12th,  1846. 

(Signed.)  ANDRES  CASTILLERO. 

c°py-    . 

Mexico,  April  23d,  1850. 

(Signed.)  0.  MONASTERIO. 

8 


58 

Most  Excellent  Sir. 

Having  reported  to  his  Exellency,  the  President,  ad  interim,  of  the 
Republic,  your  Excellency's  note  of  the  14th  inst.,  with  which  you 
were  pleased  to  transmit  with  a  recommendation,  the  petition  of  Senor 
Don  Andres  Castillero,  for  the  encouragement  of  the  quicksilver  mine 
which  he  has  discovered  in  the  Mission  of  Santa  Clara  in  Upper  Cali- 
fornia. His  Excellency  has  been  pleased  to  approve  in  all  its  parts 
the  agreement  made  with  that  individual  in  order  to  commence  the 
extraction  of  said  mineral,  and  on  this  day  the  corresponding  commu- 
nication has  been  made  to  the  Minister  of  Exterior  Relations  and  Gov- 
ernment, to  issue  the  proper  orders  respecting  that  which  is  contained 
in  the  eighth  proposition  for  the  grant  of  lands  in  that  Department. 

I  repeat  to  your  Excellency  the  assurances,  &c. 

God  and  Liberty. 

Mexico,  May  20, 1846. 

(Signed.)  BECERRA. 

To  his  Excellency,  Don  Vicente  Segura,  President  of  the  Junta  for 
the  encouragement  of  Mining. 


The  foregoing  was  communicated  to  this  Ministry  of  Relations,  say- 
ing, "  And  I  have  the  honor  to  enclose  it  to  your  Excellency,  to  the 
end  that  with  respect  to  the  petition  of  Senor  Castillero,  to  which  his 
Excellency,  the  President,  ad  interim,  has  thought  proper  to  accede 
that  there  be  granted  him,  as  a  colonist,  two  square  leagues  upon  the 
lands  of  his  mining  possession.  Your  Excellency  may  be  pleased  to 
issue  the  orders  corresponding." 

I  repeat  to  your  Excellency,  &c. 

Date  as  above. 

(Signed.)  BECERRA. 

To  his  Excellency,  tlu  Minister  of  Exterior  Relations  and  Govern- 
ment. 

Copy. 

Mexico,  April  23d,  1850. 

(Signed.)  0.  MONASTERIO. 


59 

I,  the  undersigned,  Minister  of  Internal  and  External  Relations,  cer- 
tify, that  although  in  the  communication  which  the  Junta  for  the  En- 
couragement and  Administraion  of  Mining  directed  on  the  5th  of  May 
1846,  to  his  Excellency  the  Minister  of  Justice,  relative  to  the  min- 
of  cinnabar  discovered  in  California  by  Don  Andres  Castillero,  it  was 
written  that  it  was  situated  in  Lower  California,  and  the  same  is  said 
in  the  answer  from  the  Ministry,  dated  the  9th  of  the  said  month  of 
which  documents  copies  were  given  on  the  twenty-third  of  April  last, 
to  Senor  Eustaquio  Barron.  This  is  a  mistake,  for  said  mine  and  the 
lands  granted  to  Castillero  are  in  the  territory  of  Upper  California, 
which  grant  the  Supreme  Government  afterwards  approved  and  de- 
clared legitimate. 

And  I  give  this  certificate  for  the  purposes  which  it  may  serve,  at 
the  request  o  the  said. Senor  Barron,  in  Mexico,  on  the  30th  of  June, 
1850. 

(Signed.)  LACUNZA. 


PETITION. 

I,  Eustaquio  Barron,  of  this  neighborhood,  before  you  as  I  best  may 
proceed  in  law,  and  with  all  legal  reservations,  say  :  That  it  is  requi- 
site for  the  security  of  my  right  to  have  an  authenticated  copy  of  the 
enclosed,  which  is  expressed  in  the  documents  which,  with  due  solem- 
nity, I  transmit  on  eleven  written  leaves  ;  and  for  that  purpose  I  pray 
you  to  have  the  goodness  to  order  that  the  said  copy  be  made  by  the 
Notary,  without  having  occasion  to  issue  a  summons,  there  being  no 
person  to  be  summoned ;  and  being  finished,  that  it  be  given  to  me 
with  the  original  which  I  present ;  for  all  that  I  ask  is  in  conformity 
with  justice. 

Swearing  whatever  may  be  necessary,  &c. 

(Signed.)  EUSTAQUIO  BARRON. 


ORDER. 

Mexico,  August  19, 1850. 

Admitted  with  the  accompanying  documents,  let  it  be  done  as  he 
requests,  and  let  it  answer  the  purposes  which  it  may  serve.     Senor 


60 

Don  Antonio  Madrid  "  Juez  de  Letras  "  of  the  Civil  Branch  in  the 
Federal  District,  thus  ordered  and  signed. 

(Signed.)  MADRID. 

I  certify. 

(Signed.)  Ramon  de  la  Cueva. 


The  foregoing  documents  agree  with  their  originals,  which  I  returned 
to  the  person  interested,  to  which  I  refer,  from  which  the  present  copy 
was  made  to  the  letter,  faithfully  compared  and  corrected  in  conform- 
ity with  that  ordered  in  the  act  included,  at  the  request  of  Senor  Don 
Eustaquio  Barron,  in  the  city  of  Mexico,  on  the  twenty-first  of  Au- 
gust, eighteen  hundred  and  fifty,  and  it  goes  on  nine  leaves,  the  first 
being  of  the  1st  stamp,  and  the  others  of  the  4th  stamp,  for  the  present 
two  years,  the  witnesses  to  its  copy  and  correction  being  Don  Juan  La- 
vala,  Don  Felipe  Moctezuma,  and  Don  Manuel  Rojo,  of  this  neigh- 
borhood. 

I  certify, 
(Signed.)  RAMON  DE  LA  CUEVA, 

National  Notary  Public. 


We,  who  subscribe,  certify  and  assure  that  Don  Ramon  de  la  Cu- 
eva, by  whom  is  authenticated  the  foregoing  copy,  is  a  National  Notary 
Public,  of  the  number  as  it  is  called,  faithful  and  of  confidence,  and  to 
whatsoever  instruments  he  makes  legal  there  has  been  given  and  is 
given  entire  faith  and  credit  in  court  and  out  of  it. 

And  in  testimony  thereof  we  give  this  present,  sealed  with  the  seal 
of  our  National  College  in  Mexico,  on  the  twenty-first  of  August,  one 
thousand  eight  hundred  and  fifty. 


(      Seal  of  the      \  (Signed)  IGNACIO  PERA. 

\  National    College  I 

S     of  Notaries  of     f         (Signed)  FERMIN  VILLA. 

(^         Mexico.         J 
* v '     (Signed)  MAN'L.  CABEZA  DE  VACA. 


No.  932.  Consulate  of  the  U.  S.  of  America, 

Mexico,  January  8th,  1851. 
I,  the  undersigned,  Consul  of  the  United  States   of  America  for 


61 

the  City  of  Mexico,  hereby  certify  that  the  signatures  of  Ignacio 
Pena,  Man'l.  Cabeza  de  Vaca,  and  Fermin  Villa,  subscribed  to  the 
preceding  certificate,  are  in  the  proper  handwriting  of  said  persons 
respectively,  the  same  as  used  by  them  in  all  their  official  acts,  who 
are  well  known  to  me,  and  were  at  the  time  of  subscribing  their  sev- 
eral names,  duly  authorised  Notaries  Public  for  the  City  of  Mexico, 
and  that  all  their  official  acts  are  entitled  to  full  faith  and  credit  as 
such  respectively. 

/ i      In  testimony   whereof  I  have    hereunto  set  my  hand, 

\  seal  [  and   affixed   the  Consular   seal,  the  day  and  year  above 
'  — ~*>  '  written. 

(Signed)  JOHN  BLACK, 

Consul. 
Register  F.  folio  52. 


I,  the  undersigned,  1st  Chief  Clerk  of  the  Ministry  of  Interior  and 
Exterior  Relations,  certify  that  the  forogoing  copy  of  the  documents 
or  certificates  given  by  me  of  the  titles  of  the  Mine  of  New  Alma- 
den,  is  equal  to  and  agrees  with  their  literal  tenor,  as  shown  by  the 
comparison  which  has  been  made,  and  that  the  signature  of  Don 
Ramon  de  la  Cueva,  which  covers  it,  and  those  of  the  other  Notaries 
which  prove  it,  are  the  same  which  they  use  as  such  Notaries. 

Mexico,  January  10, 1851. 

(Signed)  JOSE  MARIA  ORTIZ  MONASTERIO. 

Fees,  $4. 


No.  9T0. 

Consulate  of  the  U.  S.  of  America, 
Mexico,  Jan.  11, 1851. 

I,  the  undersigned,  Consul  of  the  United  States  of  America  for 
the  City  of  Mexico,  do  hereby  certify  that  the  signature  of  Jose 
Maria  Ortiz  Monasterio,  subscribed  to  the  foregoing  certificate,  is  in 
the  proper  handwriting  of  said  person,  the  same  as  used  by  him  in  all 
his  official  acts,  who  is  well  known  to  me,  and  was  at  the  time  of  sub- 
scribing the  same,  First  Clerk  of  the  Department  of  Interior  and 
Foreign  Relations  of  the  Mexican  Government,  and  that  all  his  official 
acts  are  entitled  to  full  faith  and  credit  as  such. 


62 

In  testimony  whereof  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  affixed  the 
Consular  seal,  the  day  and  year  above  written. 

|  Z2 1  (Signed)  JOHN  BLACK. 

Register  F.  fo.  58. 
Fees  $2. 


Isidro  Rafael  Gondra,  Secretary  of  the  Directive  and  Administra- 
tive Junta  of  Mining. 

I  certify  that  the  'expediente  which  exists  in  the  Secretary's  office 
of  Mining,  relative  to  the  denouncement,  possession,  and  grant  to 
Don  Andres  Castillero,  of  the  Mine  of  Cinnabar  which  exists  in 
Upper  California,  called  New  Almaden,  shows  :  That  in  consequence 
of  the  reports  of  the  directive  Junta,  the  Supreme  Government,  in 
virtue  of  the  petition  of  Senor  Castillero,  issued  to  him  the  legal  title, 
or  respective  testimony  of  his  acquisition  in  conformity  with  the  ordi- 
nances on  that  branch,  and  that  this  grant  to  the  said  Castillero,  was 
for  a  "  pertenencia"  of  three  thousand  varas  upon  the  plan  of  said 
quicksilver  mine,  in  order  to  work  it  to  that  extent,  and  for  two  square 
leagues  contiguous  to  the  said  "  pertenencia,"  to  take  from  them  the 
firewood  and  other  indispensable  and  useful  benefits  for  the  works  of  the 
mine,  which  grants,  particular  and  special,  the  Supreme  Government 
thought  proper  to  make  on  account  of  the  favor  which  the  laws  direct 
to  be  imparted  to  the  discoverers  of  quicksilver  mines,  proceeding  in 
them  in  conformity  with  that  reported  by  the  Directive  Junta. 

And  at  the  request  of  the  owners  of  New  Almaden,  I  give  the 
present  certificate,  referring  to  the  said  expediente,  by  which  all  the 
foregoing  is  proved,  and  I  sign  it  in  Mexico,  on  the  23d  of  Jan.  1851. 

(Signed)  YSIDRO  R.  GONDRA, 

Secretary. 


The  undersigned,  Chief  Clerk  of  the  Ministry  of  Interior  and 
Foreign  Relations : 

Certifies  that  the  foregoing  signature  of  Sr.  Don  Ysidro,  Secretary  of 
the  Directive  and  Administrative  Junta  of  Mining  is  legitimate,  and 
the  same  which  he  is  accustomed  to  use  in  his  official  acts. 

Mexico,  Febr'y  26th,  1851. 

(Signed)  JOSE  MARIA  ORTIZ  MONASTERIO. 

Fees  $4. 


63 

I  hereby  certify  that  the  above  is  the  signature  of  Don  Jose  Maria 
Ortis  Monasterio,  Under-Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs  of  the 
Mexican  Republic. 

|  seal  |  (Signed)  PERCY  W.  DOYLE'. 

Her  Britannic  Majesty's  Charge*  d' Affaires 
in  the  Republic  of  Mexico. 
Mexico,  Feb'y  26, 1851. 


No.  1075. 

CONLULATE  OF  THE  U.  S.  OF  AMERICA, 

Mexico,  February  26, 1851. 

I,  the  undersigned,  Consul  of  the  United  States  of  America  for 
the  City  of  Mexico,  hereby  certify  that  the  signatures  of  Jose*  Maria 
Ortiz  Mona'sterio,  and  of  Percy  W.  Doyle,  subscribed  to  the  fore- 
going certificate,  are  in  the  proper  hand  writing  of  said  persons  res- 
pectively, the  same  as  used  by  them  in  their  several  official  acts,  who 
are  both  well  known  to  me,  and  were  at  the  time  of  subscribing  their 
respective  names  as  follows  to  wit:  the  first,  First  Clerk  of 
the  Department  of  Interior  and  of  Foreign  relations  of  the 
Mexican  Government;  and  the  second,  Her  Britannic  Majesty's 
Charge  d' Affaires  near  the  aforesaid  government,  and  that  all 
their  several  acts  are  entitled  to  full  faith  and  credit  as  such 
respectively. 

In  testimony  whereof,  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  affixed  the 
Consular  seal,  the  day  and  year  above  written. 

|  seal  I  (Signed)  JOHN  BLACK, 

* >  Consul. 

Filed  in  Office,  Sep.  30th,  1852. 

GEO.  FISHER, 

Secy. 


/ 
B.  P.  L.      EXHIBIT  TO   DEPOSITION   OF  JOSE  MARIA 
LAFRAGUA.  JANUARY  29,  1855. 

Copia  literal  del  decreto  que  se  halla  puesto  al  margen  de  la  comu- 
nicacion  de  la  Junta  Mineria,  en  que  se  insert6  la  solicitud  de  Castil- 
lero. 

Mayo  20  de  1846. 

"  Se  concede  en  los  terminos  que  se  propone ;  y  por  lo  tocante  al 


64 

terreno,  librese  la  orden  correspondiente  al  Ministro  de  Relaciones 
para  las  providencias  de  su  resorte,  en  el  concepto  de  que  el  Supremo 
Gobierno  esta  anuente  a  la  solicitud." 
»i>:  J.  M.  LAGRAGUA. 


Filed  in  office  Jan'y  30th,  1855. 

GEO.  FISHER, 

Secretary. 


TRANSLATION  OF  EXHIBIT  B.,  P.  L.,  TO   DEPOSITION 
OF  J.  M.  LAFRAGCFA. 

A  literal  copy  of  the  decree  which  is  formed  on  the  margin  of  the 
communication  from  the  "  Junta  de  Mineria,"  which  was  inserted  in 
the  petition  of  Castillero. 

May  30,  1846. 

It  was  granted  upon  the  terms  proposed  ;  and  with  respect  to  the 
land,  let  the  proper  order  issue  to  the  Minister  of  Relations  for  the 
proceedings,  so  far  as  his  department  is  concerned,  with  the  under- 
standing that  the  Supreme  Government  is  favorable  to  the  petition. 

(Signed)  J.  M.  LAFRAGUA. 

I  hereby  certify  the  foregoing  to  be  a  true  and  correct  translation  of 
a  document  marked  "B.,  P.  L.,"  exhibit  to  deposition  of  Jose*  Maria 
Lafragua,  in  case  No.  366,  on  the  docket  of  the  U.  S.  L.  Commis- 
sion, &c. 

Witness  my  official  signature,  this  30th  day  of  January,  A.  D. 
1855. 

GEO.  FISHER, 

Secretary. 

Filed  in  office,  Jan.  30, 1855. 

GEO.  FISHER, 

Secretary. 


65 

C.,  P.  L.    EXHIBIT  TO  THE  DEPOSITION  OF  JOS^  MA- 
RIA LAFRAGUA,  JANUARY  29th,  1855. 

Ministerio  de  Relaciones  Exteriores,  Gobernacion  y  Policia  : 
Exmo.  Sr., 

El  E.  Y.  S.  Ministro  de  Justicia,  en  oficio  del  confente  mo,  /  j 
dice  lo  que  copio :  w> 

"E.  S. — Hoy  digo  al  E.  S.  D.  Vicente  Segura,  Presidentevfo^ ,- - 
Junta  de  Fomento  de  Mineria,  lo  siguiente  :  ^^Tli^ 

1  E.  S.  Habiendo  dado  cuenta  al  E.  S.  Presidente  interino  conlanota 
de  V.  E.  de  14  del  presente  a  que  se  sirvio  acompanarme,  con  reco- 
mendacion,  la  solicitud  del  S.  D.  Andres  Castillero  para  el  fomento  de 
la  Mina  de  Azogue  que  ha  descubierto  en  la  Mision  de  Sta.  Clara,  en 
la  Alta  California  ;  se  ba  servido  S.  E.  aprobar  en  todas  sus  partes  el 
convenio  celebrado  con  dicbo  individuo  para  principiar  la  esplotacion 
de  dicho  mineral,  y  con  esta  fecha  se  hace  la  comunicacion  que  corres- 
ponde  al  Mintsterio  de  Relaciones  Esteriores  y  Gobernacion,  para  que 
libre  las  ordenas  oportunas  por  lo  respectivo  a  lo  que  contiene  la  8a. 
proposicion,  relativa  a  la  concesion  de  terrenos  en  aquel  Departa- 
mento.' 

Y  tengo  el  honor  de  insertarlo  a  Y.  E.  a  fin  de  que  por  lo  respectivo 
a  la  solicitud  del  S.  Castillero,  a  que  ha  tenido  a  bien  acceder  el  E.  S. 
Presidente  interino  sobre  que  como  c61ono  se  le  conceda  dos  sitios  de 
ganado  mayor  sobre  el  terreno  de  su  posesion  minera,  se  sirva  V.  E. 
librar  las  ordenes  de  que  se  trata. 

Reitero  a  V.  E.,  &a." 

Y  lo  trascribo  a  V.  E.  para  que,  con  arreglo  a  lo  que  prevengan  las 
leyes  y  disposiciones  sobre  colonizacion,  ponga  al  S.  Castillero  en  pose- 
sion de  los  dos  sitios  que  se  mencionan. 

Dios  y  Libertad. 

Mexico,  Mayo  23  de  1846. 


CASTILLO  LANZAS. 


e.  s.  gobernador  del 
Departamento  de  Californias. 


66 


Sello  Cuarto. 


Un  Real. 


Jesus  Vejar,  Escribano  Publico. 

Certifico  y  doy  fe,  que  el  presente  instrumento  autentico  firmado  por 
el  Exmo.  Senor  Ministro  de  Relaciones  Esteriories,  Gobernacion  y  Po- 
licia,  Castillo  Lanzas,  ha  sido  respetado  bajo  esa  firma  y  obsequiado 
por  las  autoridades  Mejicanas  que  gobernaban  en  la  Alta  California  en 
el  ano  de  mil  ochocientos  cuarenta  y  seis,  segun  las  insereiones  que 
aquellas  mismas  autoridades  hizieron  de  tal  instrumento  en  actos  que 
autorizaron  sobre  el  asunto  que  verzan,  y  los  cuales  doy  fe  haber  visto, 
y  por  esta  razon  debe  tenerse  por  cierto  y  del  puno  y  letra  del  E.  Se- 
nor Ministro  esa  firma  en  el  repetido  instrumento  y  como  que  tambien 
por  actos  que  ante  mi  han  pasado  la  reconocio  el  Senor  Don  Andres 
Castillero. 

Y  a  pedimento  de  los  Seiiores  Barron,  Forbes  y  Compania  signo  y 
firmo  el  presente  en  Tepic  &  quince  de  Marzo  de  mil  ochocientos  cin- 
cuenta. 

JESUS  VEJAR. 

El  Alcalde  1°.  Constitucional  y  Escribano  Publico  que  firmamos, 
certificamos  y  damos  fd,  que  el  signo  y  firma  que  antecede  es  el  que 
usa  y  acostumbra  el  Escribano  Don  Jesus  Vejar  en  todos  los  autos  que 
ante  el  pasan.  Asi  lo  comprovamos  en  Tepic,  a  quince  de  Marzo  de 
mil  ochocientos  cincuenta. 

LORETO   CORONA. 
EUSEBIO  FERNANDEZ. 


Consulate  of  the  United  States, 
Tepic,  June  8,  1850. 
I,  E.  L.  Barre,  acting  Consul  of  the  U.  States,  do  hereby  certify 
that  the  foregoing  signatures  are  in  the  true  handwriting  of  Loretb 


67 

Corona  and  Eusebio  Fernandez;  the  first,  Alcalde  1°.,  and  the  second, 
a  lawfully  appointed  Public  Notary,  in  this  city,  and  whose  acts  are 
worthy  of  all  faith  and  credit. 

c )      In  testimony  whereof  I  do  hereby  set  my  hand  and  seal 

j  seal  [  of  office  this  day  above  mentioned. 

(  — ~  ]  E.   L.  BARRE, 


Filed  in  office,  Jan.  30,  1855. 


Acting  Consul. 

GEO.  FISHER. 

Secretary. 


[No.  3.] 

TRANSLATION  OF  C,  P.  L.  EXHIBIT   TO   DEPOSITION 
OF  JOSE  MA  LAFRAGUA. 

Ministry  of  Foreign  Relations,   ) 
Government  and  Police.        ) 
Most  Excellent  Sir: 

His  Excellency,  the  Minister  of  Justice,  in  an  official  note  of  the 
20th  inst,  communicates  to  me  that  which  I  copy  below : 

"  Most  Excellent  Sir  : 

I  have  this  day  addressed  to  his  Excellency,  Don  Vicente  Segura, 
President  of  the  Board  for  the  encouragement  of  mines,  the  following : 

'Most  Excellent  Sir: 

Having  laid  before  his  Excellency  the  President,  ad  interim,  your 
Excellency's  note  of  the  14th  inst.,  wherewith  you  were  pleased  to 
accompany  me,  with  a  recommendation,  the  petition  of  Seilor  Don  An- 
dres Castillero  for  the  fomentation  of  the  quicksilver  mine  which  he 
has  discovered  at  the  Mission  of  Santa  Clara  in  Upper  California. 

His  Excellency  has  been  pleased  to  approve,  in  all  its  parts,  the 
agreement  made  with  said  individual  to  commence  the  exploring  of 
the  said  mine,  and  under  this  date  the  corresponding  communication 
is  addressed  to  the  Ministry  of  Foreign  Relations  and  Government  for 
the  issuing  of  the  necessary  orders  with  reference  to  what  is  contained 
in  the  eighth  proposition  relative  to  the  granting  of  lands  in  that  De- 
partment.' 

I  have  the  honor  to  transcribe  it  to  your  Excellency,  that,  in  re- 
gard to  the  petition  of  Seilor  Castillero,  to  which  his  Excellency,  the 
President,  ad  interim,  has  thought  proper  to  accede,  provided,  that 


68 

as  a  colonist,  two  square  leagues  be  granted  bhn  upon  the  land  of  his 
mineral  possession,    you  may  be  pleased  to  issue  the  orders  referred. 
I  reiterate  to  your  Excellency,  &c." 

And  I  transcribe  it  to  your  Excellency,  that  in  conformity  with  the 
provisions  of  the  laws  and  decrees  relative  to  colonization,  you  may 
give  Senor  Castillero  possession  of  the  two  square  leagues  above  men- 
tioned. 

God  and  Liberty.     Mexico,  May  23, 1$}6. 

(Signed.)  CASTILLO  LANZAS. 

To  his  Excellency  of  the  Department  of  the  Calitornias. 


(    For  the  years    J 

SEAL   4TH.,        <  >        ONE   REAL. 

(  1850  and  1851.  ) 

I,  Jesus  Vejar,  a  Notary  Public,  hereby  certify  and  attest  that  the 
foregoing  authentic  instrument,  signed  by  his  Excellency,  the  Minister 
of  Foreign  Relations,  Government  and  Police,  Castillo  Lanzas,  has  been 
respected  under  that  signature,  and  obeyed  by  the  Mexican  authori- 
ties that  governed  in  Upper  California  in  the  year  eighteen  hundred 
and  forty-six,  according  to  insertions  which  the  said  authorities  made 
of  the  said  instrument  in  acts  which  they  passed  upon  the  subject  of 
which  they  treat,  and  which  I  certify  to  have  seen,  and  for  this  rea- 
son that  signature  in  the  said  instrument  should  be  esteemed  as  au- 
thentic and  signed  in  the  hand-writiting  of  his  Excellency,  the  Min- 
ister, and  as,  also,  by  proceedings  that  have  passed  under  my  obser- 
vation, Senor  Don  Andres  Castillero  recognized  it. 

And  at  the  instance  of  the  Messrs.  Barron,  Forbes  &  Co.,  I  have 
placed  hereon  my  signet,  and  sign  it  in  Tepic,  on  this  1st  day  of 
March,  1850. 

(Signed.  JESUS  VEJAR. 


We,  the  undersigned,  First  Constitutional  Alcalde  and  Notary  Pub- 
lic, hereby  certify  and  attest  that  the  foregoing  signet  and  signature 
which  Don  Jesus  Vejar  a  Notary,  generally  uses  in  all  the  acts  is  that 
performed  by  him. 


69 

This  we  verify  in  Tepic,  this  1st  March,  1850. 

(Signed.)  LORETO  CORONA. 

(Signed.)  EUSEBIO  FERNANDEZ. 

A  true  and  correct  translation.  Witness  my  hand  this  30th  January, 
1855. 

GEO.  FISHER, 

Secretary. 
Filed  in  office,  January  30th,  1855. 

GEO.  FISHER, 

Secretary. 


EXHIBIT  "D.,  P.  L.,"  ANNEXED   TO  THE   DEPOSITION 
OF  JOSE  MARIA  LAFRAGUA. 


page  65.  j]n  ej  Estado  de  San  Luis  Potosi,  se  hallan  en  proporcion  de  los 
me  tales  que  se  benefician  y  el  azogue  que  se  estrae,  y  en  la  Alta  Cal- 
ifornia se  ha  descubierto  un  criadero,  cuyu  ley  sobrepuja  4  la  de  la 
mejor  mina  que  se  conoce,  la  de  Almaden,  la  cual  no  produce  mas  de 
un  trece  por  ciento,  cuando  la  nuestra,  en  los  ensayos  practicados  en  el 
Colegio  de  Mineria  de  esta  Capital,  sube  a  un  trienta  y  cinco  y  medio 

por  ciento. 

********* 

********* 
********* 
********* 

page  66.  Yo  recomiendo  al  Soberano  Congreso  que  fije  su  atencion  en 
este  ramo,  haciendo  de  la  esplotacion  de  nuestro  azogue,  una  verdadera 
empresa  national,  cuya  importancia  no  se  puedo  encarecer  demasiado, 

bien  sea  creando  un  fondo,  6  bien  dictando  otras  medidas  oportunas. 

********* 

********* 
********* 
********* 
page  136.  j^a  junta  en  21  de  Abril  proximo  pasado,  pas6  a  la  facultativa 
del  Colegio  unas  muestras  de  cinabrio  que  presentd  D.  Tomas  Ramon 
del  Moral  a  nombre  de  D.  Andres  Castillero,  vecino  de  la  Alta  Califor- 
nia, con  una  esposicion  en  que  pide  se  le  auxilie.  para  trabajar  una  mi- 
na que  ha  descubierto  en  la  Mision  de  Santa  Clara,  conocido  por  los 


70 

antiguos  Indios,  quienes  sacaban  de  ella  el  bermellon  para  pintarse  el 
cuerpo.  Hecho  el  ensayo  por  el  profesor  de  quimica  resulta  que  los 
metales  en  comun  produjeron  la  estraordinaria  ley  de  35J  por  100,  lo 
que  se  participo  al  Gobierno  en  5  de  Mayo,  manifestandole  que  se  ha- 
bia  preguntado  al  Sr.  Castillero  cuales  era  los  auxilios  que  necesitaba 
de  la  Junta. 

Este  Senor  presento  su  solicitud  en  forma,  y  examinada  muy  dete- 
nidamente  por  la  Junta,  hizo  sus  proposiciones,  en  que  esta  con  vino, 
reducida  k  que  se  le  franqueasen  por  entonces  cinco  mil  pesos  en  nu- 
merario,  ocho  retortas  de  fierro,  de  las  que  mand6  hacer  la  Junta  para 
que  serviesen  en  los  reconocimientos  hechos  anteriormente,  y  todos  los 
frascos  para  azogue  que  tiene  en  la  negociacion  de  Tasco.  El  Sr.  Cas- 
tillero se  oblig6  por  su  parte  k  entregar  dicha  anticipacion  en  azogue, 
k  razon  de  cien  pesos  quintal  dentro  de  seis  meses  de  su  salida  en  el 
puerto  de  Mazatlan.  Este  eonvenio  fue  aprobado  por  el  Supremo  Go- 
bierno en  20  del  mismo ;  pero  k  virtud  de  la  declaracion  hecha  por  los 
Estados  Unidos  del  Norte,  cuando  iba  ya  k  recibir  la  libranza  sobre 
Mazatlan,  el  Ministerio  pas6  la  orden  de  19  de  Septiembre  de  este  ano, 
mandando  suspender  todo  pago  del  ramo  de  azogues  a  escepcion  de  los 
gastos  alimenticios  del  Colegio  y  la  Oficina. 


********* 
********* 
page  146.  ^0  es  ja  ocasion  de  presentar  reunidos  todos  los  trabajos  de 
la  Junta  para  corresponder  a  la  alta  confianza  con  que  la  honr6  el  go- 
bierno. Una  parte  de  ellos  van  especificados  en  la  presente  nota,  y 
los  demos  se  hallan  consignados  en  las  memorias  informed  y  multitud 
de  comunicaciones  que  obran  en  ese  ministerio.  Por  ahora  umcamente 
se  reducird  k  asegurar  lo  que  consta  de  eros  documentos,  a  saber ;  que 
el  espiritu  de  empresa  se  llego  a  estimular  en  terminos  de  estarse  es- 
plotando  minas  de  azogue  en  los  principales  Departamentos  de  la  Re- 
publica,  ya  por  companias  ya  tambien  por  particulares  ;  que  en  el  de 
San  Luis  Potosi,  azogue  que  se  estrae  est&  en  proporcion  de  la  plata 
que  se  beneficia,  en  terminos  de  no  necesitarse  del  estrangero  ;  que  en 
la  Alta  California,  en  el  presidio  de  Santa  Rosa,  ha  llegado  k  descu- 
brirse  un  gran  criadero,  por  el  Sr.  Andres  Castillero,  cuyos  leyes  son 
verdaderamente  sorprendentes  ;  pues  resulta  de  los  ensayes  practicados 
en  el  Colegio  de  Mineria  que  las  que  dan  los  frutos  comunes  sube  k  un 
35J  por  100,  cuando  los  de  la  mejos  mina  que  se  conoce,  que  es  la  del 
Almaden,  no  para  de  un  13  por  100  ;  y  en  fin,  que  por  todos  los  datos 
que  se  han  reunido,  se  puede  esperar  descansando  en  muy  bucnos  fun- 
damentos  que  nuestros  criaderos  de  azogues  son  mas  que  suficientes 
para  habilitarnos  de  todo  lo  que  se  necesita  para  el  beneficio  de  nues- 
tras  platas. 


71 

Esta  gran  empresa  nacional,  la  Junta  no  ha  podido  Uevarla  a  cabo, 
porque  se  le  privo  de  uno  de  sus  fondos  del  1  por  100  de  la  circulacion 
de  la  moneda  sin  sustituirle  otro,  y  porque  del  que  le  restaba,  solo  ha 
podido  dispone  de  menos  de  una  tercera  parte,  pues  el  gobierno  en  los 
apuros  del  erario,  ha  usado  de  las  restantes.  El  mal  se  agrav6  hasta 
el  estremo  lamentable  de  quedarse  sin  ninguno  por  la  orden  de  lo  de 
Mayo  ultimo,  que  mando  suspender  todos  los  pagos  que  se  hacian  por 
la  hacienda  publica.  Los  resultados  funestos  de  tales  determinacio- 
nes,  la  Junta  no  se  detendrd  a  pormenorizarlos ;  ellos  se  hacen  paten- 

tes  por  lo  hasta  aqui  manifestado. 

********* 

********* 

Filed  in  office,  Jan.  30, 1855. 

(Signed)  GEO.  FISHER, 

Secretary. 


TRANSLATION  OF  "D.,P.  L."  EPHIBIT  TO  DEPOSITION 
OF  JOSE  MARIA  LAFRAGUA. 

Translations  of  those  portions  of  document  marked  "D.,  P.  L."  ex- 
hibited in  the  deposition  of  Jose*  Maria  Lafragua,  January  29th, 
1855,  therein  marked  as  referent  to  the  subject  of  the  land  claimed 
in  this  case. 


page  65.  jn  ^G  gtate  of  San  Louis  Potosi,  the  minerals  yield  fifty  per 
cent,  of  quicksilver,  and  in  Upper  California  a  criadero  has  been  disco- 
vered whose  base  exceeds  that  of  the  best  mine  known,  that  of  Almaden, 
which  produces  eighty-seven  per  cent.,  while  ours  in  the  assays  made 
in  this  .mineral,  of  this  capital  only  ascends  to  sixty-five  per  cent. 


page  ee.  j  woui(j  recommend  the  sovereign  Congress  to  direct  their  atten- 
tion to  this  Department,  making  the  exploration  of  our  quicksilver  a 
truly'national  enterprise,  the  importance  of  which  cannot  be  too  highly 
estimated,  either  by  creating  a  fund,  or  adopting  other  convenient 

measures. 

******* 


72 

page  156.  Qn  fae  21st  day  of  April  last,  the  Board  transmitted  to  the 
faculty  of  the  college  a  few  specimens  of  ore  which  Don  Tomas  Ramon 
del  Moral  presented  in  the  name  of  Don  Andres  Castillero,  a  resident 
of  Upper  California,  with  an  exposition,  in  which  he  asks  means  for  the 
working  of  a  mine  which  he  has  discovered  in  the  Mission  of  Santa 
Clara,  known  by  the  old  Indians,  who  used  to  obtain  therefrom  ver- 
milion to  paint  their  bodies  with.  The  assay  having  been  made  by 
the  Professor  of  Chemistry,  it  was  ascertained  that  the  ores  produced 
on  an  average  the  base  of  thirty-five  per  cent.,  which  was  reported  to 
the  Government  on  the  5th  of  May,  with  the  representation  that 
Senor  Castillero  had  been  asked  what  were  the  means  he  needed 
from  the  Board. 

This  gentleman  presented  his  petition  in  form,  and  the  Board 
having  examined  it  very  carefully,  he  made  his  propositions,  to  which 
the  Board  agreed,  it  having  been  resolved  that  for  the  present  there 
should  be  furnished  him  five  thousand  in  money,  eight  iron  retorts  of 
those  which  the  Board  ordered  to  be  made  to  serve  in  the  examina- 
tions previously  made,  and  all  the  quicksilver  flasks  which  it  has  at 
the  establishment  of  Tasco.  Senor  Castillero  obligated  himself  on 
his  part,  to  pay  the  said  advance  in  quicksilver,  at  the  rate  of  one 
hundred  dollars  per  quintal,  within  six  months  from  the  date  of  his 
departure  from  the  port  of  Mazatlan. 

This  agreement  was  approved  by  the  Supreme  Government  on  the 
30th  of  the  same,  but  in  consequence  of  the  declaration  made  by  the 
United  States  of  the  North,  when  he  was  en  route  to  Mazatlan  to 
cash  the  draft,  the  minister  issued  an  order  on  the  19th  September  of 
this  year,  directing  the  suspension  of  all  payments  from  the  quick- 
silver department,  with  the  exception  of  the  alimentary  expenses  of 
the  College  and  the  kitchen. 


rage  146.  This  is  not  the  occasion  to  present  all  the  collected  labors  of  the 
Board,  to  correspond  with  the  high  confidence  with  which  the  govern- 
ment has  honored  it.  A  portion  of  them  are  specified  in  the  present 
note,  and  the  rest  are  assigned  to  the  memorials,  reports,  and  the 
numerous  communications  which  exist  in  that  ministry. 

For  the  present  it  will  confine  itself  alone  to  the  stating  of  what  is 
contained  in  those  documents,  to  wit :  that  a  spirit  of  enterprise  was 
stimulated  at  the  time  of  the  exploration  of  the  quicksilver 
mines  in  the  principal  departments  of  the  Republic,  both  by  com- 
panies and  by  individuals.  That  in  that  of  San  Louis  Potosi, 
the  quicksilver  which  is  extracted  is  proportionate  to  the  silver  that 
is  wrought,  so  as  not  to  need  any  foreign  :  that  in  Upper  California, 
at  the  Presidio  of  Santa  Rosa,  a  large  criadero  has  been  discovered 


73 

by  Senor  Don  Andres  Castillero,  the  base  of  which  is  really  wonderful, 
as  it  is  ascertained  by  the  assays  made  in  the  Mineral  College,  that  that 
which  yields  an  average  per  cent.,  ascends  to  35  1-2  per  cent.,  whilst 
those  of  the  best  mines  that  is  known,  which  is  that  of  Almaden, 
does  not  exceed  13  per  cent.,  and  finally  from  all  the  data  that  has 
been  obtained,  it  may  be  expected,  relying  upon  good  reasons,  that 
our  quicksilver  criaderos,  are  more  than  sufficient  to  furnish  us  with 
all  that  is  necessary  for  the  working  of  our  silver  mines. 

The  Board  has  not  been  able  to  carry  this  great  national  enterprise 
into  effect,  because  it  was  deprived  of  one  of  its  resourses,  of  the 
one  per  cent  of  the  circulation  of  the  money,  without  substituting  it  by 
another,  and  because  it  has  only  been  able  to  dispose  of  two-thirds  of 
the  balance,  as  the  Government,  in  its  necessity  for  funds,  has  used 
the  other  two-thirds. 

The  evil  was  enlarged  to  the  lamentable  extreme  of  its  remaining 
without  any,  by  the  order  of  the  10th  of  May  last,  which  ordered  the 
suspension  of  all  the  payments  that  were  being  made  by  the  public 
Treasury. 

The  Board  will  not  stop  to  particularise  the  untoward  results  of  such 
determinations,  they  are  made  clear  by  what  is  here  expressed. 

A  true  and  correct  translation. 

Witness  my  official  signature,  this  3d  day  of  November,  A.D.  1855. 

GEO.  FISHER,  Secy. 

Filed  in  Office  Nov.  3,  1855 

GEO.  FISHER, 

Secy. 


"A.,  P.  L.,"  EXHIBIT  TO  THE  DEPOSITION  OF  ANTONIO 
SUftOL,  MARCH  19,  1855. 

Sor.  Alce.  de  1\  nominon. 

Andres  Castillero,  Capn.  de  Caba.  Permte.  y  residente  hoy  en 
este  Departamto.  ante  la  notoria  justificacion  de  V.  hace  presente,  que 
habiendo-  descubierto  una  veta  de  plata  con  ley  de  oro,  en  terreno  del 
rancho  perteneciente  al  Sargt0.  retirado  de  la  compania  presidial  de  S. 
Franco.  Jose  Reyes  Berreyesa,  y  queriendo  trabajarla  en  compania,  su- 
plico  a  V.  que  arreglado  a  la  ordenanza  de  mineria  se  sirva  fijar  rotu- 
lones  en  los  parages  publicos  de  la  jurisdiccion  para  que  llegado  el 
tiempo  de  la  posecion  juridica,  asegure  mi  derecho,  segun  las  leyes  de 
la  mineria. 

A.  Y.  suplico,  provia  de  conformidad  en  lo  que  recibire'  merced  y 
justicia  admitiendo  este  en  papel  comun  por  falta  del  sellado  corres- 
pondiente.     Mision  de  Sta.  Clara,  Nov6.  22  de  1845. 

ANDRES  CASTILLERO. 
10 


74 

SR.  Alcalde  de  1\  nominacion  del  Pueblo  de  San  Jose  Guada- 
lupe : 

Andres  Castillero,  Capitan  de  Caballeria  permanente,  ante  la 
notoria  justificacion  de  V.  comparesco  y  digo  que  entablando  el  mineral 
con  anterioridad  denuncie*  a  ese  juzgado  he  sacado  k  mas  de  plata 
con  ley  de  oro,  azogue  liquido,  en  presencia  de  algunos  concurrentes 
que  podre*  citar  en  caso  oportuno,  y  por  convenir  asi  k  mi  derecho  le  he 
de  merecer  k  V.  que  unido  al  escrito  de  denuncio  se  archive  esta  pre- 
sentation, no  llendo  en  papel  del  sello  por  no  haberlo. 

A  V.  suplico  provea  de  conformidad  en  lo  que  recivere"  merced  y 
iusticia.     Sta.  Clara,  Diciembre  3,  de  1845. 

ANDRES  CASTILLERO. 


No  encontrandose  en  el  Departamento  de  California,  Diputacion  de 
Mineria,  y  siendo  esta  la  unica  vez  desde  la  poblacion  de  la  Alta  Cali- 
fornia, que  se  trabajo  con  arreglo  a  las  leyes  un  mineral,  y  careciendo 
ademas  de  Juez  de  letras  el  segundo  distrito,  Yo,  el  Alcalde  de  la. 
nominacion,  C.  Antonio  Ma.  Pico,  he  venido  acompaiiado  de  dos  testigos 
para  actuar  por  receptoria  k  falta  de  escribano  publico  que  no  lo  hay, 
para  dar  posecion  juridica  de  la  mina  conocida  con  el  nombre  de  Santa 
Clara,  en  esta  jurisdicion,  situada  en  el  rancho  del  Sargt0.  Jose*  Reyes 
Berreyesa,  por  que  habiendo  fenecido  el  tiempo  que  senala  la  ordenanza 
de  mineria  para  deducir  su  accion  el  C.  Andres  Castillero  y  que  otros 
pudieran  alegar  mejor  derecho,  desde  el  tiempo  del  denuncio  k  la  fe- 
cha,  y  encontrandose  dicha  mineral  con  abundancia  de  metales  esplo- 
tados,  el  pozo  hecho  con  las  reglas  del  arte,  y  produciendo  la  elaboracion 
de  la  mina  abundancia  de  azogue  liquido,  segun  las  muestras  que  tiene 
el  juzgado ;  y  estando  tan  recomendado  por  leyes  vigentes  la  proteccion 
de  un  articulo  tan  necesario  para  la  amalgamation  de  oro  y  plata  en  la 
Republica,  he  venido  en  concederle  tres  mil  varas  por  todos  rumbos,  k 
reserva  de  lo  que  sefiale  la  ordenanza  gen1,  de  mineria,  por  ser  trabaja- 
da  comp\  de  lo  que  doy  fe*  ;  firmando  conmigo  los  testigos  y  quedando 
agregado  este  acto  de  posesion  al  cumulo  del  espediente  que  queda  de- 
positado  en  el  archivo  de  mi  cargo ;  no  yendo  puesto  en  papel  del  sello 
respectivo,  que  no  le  hay  en  los  terminos  de  la. ley. 

Juzgado  de  Sn.  Jose'  Guadalupe,  Deciembre  30,  de  mil  ochocientos 
cuarenta  y  cinco. 

ANTONIO  M\  PICO. 

De  asa — Antonio  Sunol.  De  asa — Jose  Noriega. 

Filed  in  office,  March  19th,  1855. 

GEO.  FISHER, 

Secretary. 


75 

« 

["  B."  Translation.] 
Sen  or  Alcalde  of  First  Nomination. 

Andres  Castillero,  Captain  of  permanent  Cavalry,  and  at  presentt 
resident  in  this  Department,  before  your  notorious  justification,  makes 
representation,  that  having  discovered  a  rein  of  silver,  with  a  ley  of 
gold,  on  the  rancho  pertaining  to  J  ose*  Reyes  Berreyesa,  retired  Ser- 
geant of  the  Presidio  Company  of  San  Francisco,  and  wishing  to  work 
it  in  company,  I  request  that,  in  conformity  with  the  ordinance  on 
mining,  you  will  be  pleased  to  fix  up  notices  in  public  places  of  the  ju- 
risdiction, in  order  to  make  sure  of  my  right  when  the  time  of  the  ju- 
ridical possession  may  arrive,  according  to  the  laws  on  the  matter. 

I  pray  you  to  provide  in  conformity,  in  which  I  will  receive  favor 
and  justice ;  admitting  this  on  common  paper,  there  being  none  of  the 
corresponding  stamp. 

Pueblo  of  San  Jose  Guadalupe,  November  twenty-second,  eighteen 
hundred  and  forty-five. 

(Signed)  ANDRES  CASTILLERO. 


This  is  a  copy  of  the  original  to  which  I  refer,  signing  it  with  two 
assisting  witnesses,  in  the  Pueblo  of  San  Jose"  Guadalupe,  on  the 
13th  of  January  1846. 

(Signed)  PEDRO  CHABOLLA. 

Assisting  witnesses : 
(Signed)     Sansevain, 
(Signed)     Jose  sunol. 


Senor  Alcalde  of  First  Nomination. 

I,  Andres  Castillero,  permanent  Captain  of  Cavalry,  before  your 
well  known  justification,  appear  and  say,  that  on  opening  the  mine 
which  I  previously  denounced  in  this  Court,  I  have  taken  out  besides 
silver  with  a  ley  of  gold,  liquid  quicksilver,  in  the  presence  of  several 
bystanders,  whom  I  may  summon  on  the  proper  occasion. 

And  considering  it  necessary  for  the  security  of  my  right  so  to  do, 
I  have  to  request   of  you,  that  uniting  this  representation  to  the  de- 


76 

nouncement,  it  may  be  placed  on  file,  it  not  going  on  stamped  paper, 
because  there  is  none. 

I  pray  you  to  take  measures  to  this  effect,  in  which  I  will  receive 
favor  and  grace. 

Santa  Clara,  December  3d,  1845. 

(Signed)        ANDRES  CASTILLERO. 


This  is  a  copy  of  the  original  to  which  I  refer,  signing  it  with  the 
witnesses  of  my  assistance,  in  the  Pueblo  of  San  Jose'  Guadalupe,  on 
the  13th  of  January  1846. 

(Signed)  PEDRO  CHABOLLA. 

Assisting  witnesses  : 
(Signed)     P.  Sansevain, 
(8igned)     Jose  Sunol. 


There  being  no  deputation  on  mining  in  the  Department  of  Califor- 
nia, and  this  being  the  only  time  since  the  settlement  of  Upper  Cali- 
fornia, that  a  mine  has  been  worked  in  conformity  with  the  laws — and 
there  being  no  Juez  de  Letras  (Professional  Judge)  in  the  2d  District, 
I,  the  Alcalde  of  1st  Nomination,  citizen  Antonio  Maria  Pico,  accom- 
panied by  two  assisting  witnesses,  have  resolved  to  act  in  virtue  of  my 
office  for  want  of  a  Notary  Public,  there  being  none,  for  the  purpose 
of  giving  juridical  possession  of  the  mine  known  by  the  name  of  Santa 
Clara,  in  this  jurisdiction,  situated  on  the  Rancho  of  the  retired  Ser- 
geant Josd  Reyes  Berreyesa,  for  the  time  having  expired  which  is  de- 
signated in  the  ordinance  of  mining,  for  citizen  Don  Andres  Castillero 
to  show  his  right,  and  also  for  others  to  allege  a  better  right,  between 
the  time  of  denouncement  and  this  date,  and  the  mine  being  found 
with  abundance  of  metals  discovered,  the  shaft  made  according  to  the 
rules  of  art,  and  the  working  of  the  mine  producing  a  large  quantity  of 
liquid  quicksilver,  as  shown  by  the  specimens  which  this  Court  has ;  and 
as  the  laws  now  in  force  so  strongly  recommend  the  protection  of  an  ar- 
ticle so  necessary  for  the  amalgamation  of  gold  and  silver  in  the  Re- 
Republic,  I  have  granted  three  thousand  varas  of  land  in  all  direc- 
tions, subject  to  what  the  general  ordinance  of  mines  may  direct,  it  be- 
ing worked  in  company,  to  which  I  certify,  the  witnesses  signing  with 
me  ;  this  act  of  possession  being  attached  to  the  rest  of  the  Expediente, 


77 

deposited  in   the   Archives  under  my   charge.     This  not  going  on 
stamped  paper,  because  there  is  none,  as  prescribed  by  law. 
Juzgado  of  San  Jose"  Guadalupe,  December  30,  1845. 

(Signed)  ANTONIO  MARIA  PICO. 

Assisting  witnesses : 
(Signed)     Antonio  sunol, 
(Signed)     Jose  Noriega. 


I  have  received  of  Don  Andres  Castillero  the  sum  of  twenty-five 
dollars,  on  account  of  the  fees  for  the  possession  of  the  quicksilver 
mine,  which  is  in  this  jurisdiction,  under  my  charge,  named  Santa 
Clara. 

Court  House  of  San  Jose  Guadalupe,  December  30,  1845. 

(Signed)  ANTONIO  MARIA  PICO. 

$25. 


Writing  of  partnership  executed  by  Don  Andres  Castillero,  Captain 
of  permanent  Cavalry,  with  the  Commanding  General,  Don  Jose*  Cas- 
tro, and  the  Senores  Secundino  Robles  and  Teodoro  Robles,  and  a 
voluntary  grant  which  the  partners  make  perpetually  to  the  Rev.  Fa- 
ther Friar,  Jose*  Maria  del  Refugb  Suarez  del  Real,  of  a  mine  of  sil- 
ver, gold,  and  quicksilver,  in  the  Rancho  ef  Don  Jose*  Reyes  Berrey- 
esa,  in  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Pueblo  of  San  Jose*  Guadalupe. 

Art.  1.  Don  Andres  Castillero,  conforming  in  all  respects  to  the 
ordinance  of  mining,  forms  a  regular  perpetual  partnership  with  the 
said  persons  in  this  form :  The  half  of  the  mine,  which  is  that  of  which 
he  can  dispose,  will  be  divided  in  three  parts,  in  this  manner ;  four 
shares  to  Don  Jose  Castro  ;  four  shares  to  Senores  Secundino  and  Teo- 
doro Robles  ;  and  the  other  four  shares  to  the  Rev.  Father  Jose'  Ma. 
R.  S.  del  Real,  as  a  perpetual  donation. 

Art.  2.  Neither  of  the  partners  can  sell  or  alienate  any  of  <his 
shares,  so  that  he  who  may  do  so  shall  lose  his  right,  which  shall  re- 
vert to  the  other  partners. 

Art.  3.  The  expenses  shall  be  borne  in  proportion  to  the  shares,  a 
formal  account  being  kept  by  an  accountant,  who  will  be  paid  from  the 
common  fund. 

Art.  4.  That  prescribed  by  the  ordinance  of  Mining  being  complied 
with  in  every  thing,  whatever  difference  may  arise  will  be  decided  by 
the  partners  themselves. 


78 

Art.  5.  Don  Andres  Castillero  will  direct  the  labors,  expenses,  and 
works,  and  in  his  absence,  the  Rev.  Father  Friar  Jose'  Maria  R.  S. 
del  Real. 

Art.  6.  Of  the  products,  no  larger  quantities  will  be  taken  out  than 
are  necessary  for  the  arrangement  of  the  negociation  until  the  works 
may  be  regulated ;  and  whatever  the  quantity  may  be,  it  must  be 
with  the  consent  of  all  the  partners  until  the  negociation  may  be  ar- 
ranged. 

Art.  7.  These  agreements  will  be  authenticated  by  the  Prefect 
of  the  2d  District,  Don  Manuel  Castro ;  the  original  document  be- 
ing deposited  in  the  Archives  of  the  district  (partido),  a  copy  certi- 
fied by  his  Honor  being  left  with  the  persons  interested. 

Mission  of  Santa  Clara,  November  2d,  one  thousand  eight  hundred 
and  forty-five. 

(Signed)  ANDRES  CASTILLERO. 

For  the  Comd'g  General  Don  Jose'  Castro, 

(Signed)  \  ANDRES  CASTILLERO. 

(Signed)  JOSE  MARIA  DEL  R.  S.  DEL  REAL. 

For  the  Senores  Secundino  Robles  and  Teodoro  Robles, 

(Signed)  FRANCISCO  ARCE. 

It  is  a  copy  of  the  original  to  which  I  refer. 
Santa  Clara,  December  8,  1845. 

(Signed)  MANUEL  CASTRO, 

(Signed)    Antonio  M.  Pico. 


Court  of  the  Justice  of  the  Peace  ) 
San  Jose'  Guadalupe,  Upper  California.  \ 
I  certify  in  due  form  that  the  foregoing  is  a  faithful  copy  made  to 
the  letter  from  its  original,  the  "  Expediente  "  of  the  mine  of  Santa 
Clara  or  New  Almaden,  which  exists  in  the  Archives  under  my 
charge,  to  which  I  refer.  And  in  testimony  thereof  I  have  signed  it 
this  twentieth  day  of  January,  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  forty- 
eight. 

(Signed)  JAMES  W.  WEEKS, 

Alcalde. 


79 

British  Vice  Consulate  for  California,  I 

San  Francisco,  j 
I  hereby  certify   that  the  signature  to  the  above  certificate  is  the 
true  and  proper  handwriting  of  the  person  it  represents,  and  that  it  is 
worthy  of  all  faith  and  credit. 

In  witness  whereof  I  have  hereunto  placed  my  hand  and  official 
seal  this  twenty-first  day  of  January,  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and 
forty-eight. 

(Signed.) 

A ^  JAS.  ALEXANDER  FORBES, 

Seal  of 

H.  B.  M. 

Vice  Consulate. 


v 

Jesus  Vezar,  Notary  Public. 

I  certify  and  assure  that  the  last  preceding  signature  of  the  Seiior 
Vice  Consul,  Don  James  Alexander  Forbes,  is  his  own,  which  said 
Senor  is  accustomed  to  use,  I  having  become  acquainted  with  it  when 
I  knew  him  during  his  stay  in  this  city,  on  the  way  to  Upper  Califor- 
nia, by  various  acts  which  he  executed  in  the  house  of  Messrs.  Bar- 
ron, Forbes  &  Co. 

And  at  the  request  of  the  same  persons  I  affix  my  notarial 
mark  and  signature  to  this  testimony,  in  Tepic,  on  the  fifteenth  of 
March,  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  fifty. 

(Signed.)  JESUS  VEJAR. 


We,  the  Constitutional  First  Alcalde  and  Notary  Public,  who  sign, 
certify  and  assure,  that  the  preceding  mark  and  signature  are  those 
which  the  Notary,  Jesus  Vejar,  is  accustomed  to  use  in  all  the  acts 
which  pass  before  him.  We  thus  prove  it,  in  Tepic,  on  the  fifteenth 
day  of  March,  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  fifty. 

-  (Signed.)  EUSEBIO  FERNANDEZ. 

Consulate  of  the  United  States. 

I,  George  W.  P.  Bissell,  Consul  of  the  United  States  of  North 
America  for  this  district,  hereby  certify  that  the  signatures  attached 
to  the  foregoing  document  are  in  the  true  hand-writing  of  the  subscrib- 
ers, who  legally  hold  the  situations  therein  represented,  and  are  worthy 
of  all  faith  and  credit. 

In  testimony  whereof  I  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  seal  of  office, 


80 

this  first  day  of  December,  in  the  year  one  thousand  eight  hundred 
and  fifty,  in  the  city  of  Tepic. 

, * N  (Signed.)  G.  W.  P.  BISSELL 

^      Seal      [►  U.S.  Consul. 

Filed  in  office,  Sept.  20,  1852. 

GEO.  FISHER, 


"  G,"  COPY  OF  NOTES  OF  SURVEY  AND  PLAT. 

Boundaries  of  the  land  pertaining  to  the  mine  of  New  Almaden, 
Upper  California. 

Commencing  at  a  live  oak,  blazed  and  marked  with  a  cross,  stand- 
ing on  the  western  side  of  the  Arroyo  de  los  Alamitos,  near  the  lower 
crossing  of  the  wagon  road  leading  from  the  mine  to  the  Pueblo  de 
San  Jose',  the  line  runs  along  the  lands  of  the  Rancho  de  San  Vicente, 
by  compass,  south  63  deg.  16  min.  east,  15  chains  and  50  links,  to  a 
rock  surmounted  by  a  pile  of  stones ;  thence  south  7  deg.  41  min. 
east,  82  ch.  00  Iks.,  to  an  oak,  marked  with  a  cross,  on  the  summit  of 
a  high  hill  eastward  from  the  mine  ;  thence  south  1  deg.  56  min. 
west,  281  ch.  80  Iks.,  to  the  centre  of  the  summit  of  a  high  conical 
peak,  the  northernmost  of  the  two  elevated  peaks  of  the  Sierra  Azul, 
situated  in  a  southeastern  direction  from  the  mine  ;  thence  north  66 
deg.  41  min.  west,  364  chs.  80  Iks.  tojthe  centre  of  the  high  peak  of  the 
Sierra  situated  southwesterly  from  the  mine,  and  called  by  the  Indi- 
ans "  Umunhum ;"  thence  north  27  deg.;  east  227  chs.  50  Iks.  to  a 
live-oak  marked  with  a  cross  ;  thence  north  19  deg.  18  min.  east,  133 
chs.  83  Iks.  to  another  large  live  oak,  marked  with  a  cross ;  thence 
north  61  deg.  46  min.  east,  62  chs.  50  Iks.,  to  a  sycamore,  marked 
with  a  cross,  and  standing  near  the  western  bank  of  the  Arroyo  de  los 
Alamitos  ;  thence  along  the  middle  of  said  arroyo  about  48  chs.  0  Iks. 
to  the  place  of  beginning.  Said  tract  of  land  containing  8883  Eng- 
lish acres,  or  two  Mexican  sitios. 

(Signed.)  C.  S.  LYMAN, 

Surveyor  for  the  Mid.  Dep't.,  Upper  California. 
Pueblo  de  San  Jose\  March  7th,  1848. 


81 

OPINION  OF  THE  BOARD,  BY  COMMISSIONER  A 

FELCH. 

Andres   Castillero,  ) 

vs.  > 

The  United  States.  ) 

For  the  New  Almaden  Mine,  and  two  square 
leagues  of  land  adjoining,  in  Santa  Clara 
County. 

The  claim  presented  in  this  case  is  two-fold  : 

First,  for  the  mine  of  quicksilver,  known  as"'  the  New  Almaden 
Mine,  alleged  to  have  been  acquired  by  the  petitioner  under  the  laws 
of  Mexico,  in  December,  1845  ;  and  second,  for  two  square  leagues 
of  land  around  the  mouth  of  said  mine,  alleged  to  have  been  granted 
in  colonization  to  the  petitioner,  by  the  Mexican  authorities,  Mav  20th 
1846.  J 

We  shall  consider  each  in  its  order. 

1st.     The  right  to  the  mine. 

As  to  this  part  of  the  petitioner's  claim,  it  is  urged  by  the  Law. 
Agent  of  the  Government ;  first,  that  this  Commission  has  no  jurisdic- 
tion in  the  case  of  a  mere  mining  right,  however  well  established  un- 
der the  Mexican  law,  and  therefore  cannot  adjudicate  in  the  matter  ; 
and  secondly,  that  if  adjudged  to  be  withm  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Com- 
mission, the  proof  is  not  sufficient  in  the  case  to  establish  such  right 
under  the  laws  of  the  former  Government. 

The  question  of  jurisdiction  meets  us  on  the  threshold  ;  but,  as  the 
power  of  the  Commission  to  take  cognizance  of  the  case  depends  upon 
the  legal  character  of  the  petitioner's  interest  or  right,  I  shall  first  ex- 
amine the  proofs  by  which  it  is  sought  to  be  sustained,  and  then  in- 
quire whether  such  claim  is  within  the  range  of  adjudication  commit- 
ted to  this  Commission  by  the  Act  of  March  3d,  1851. 

The  petitioner  presents  the  following  documentary  evidence  : 

First. — His  petition  directed  to  the  Alcalde  of  first  nomination,  rep- 
resenting that  he  had  discovered  a  vein  of  silver  with  a  ley  of  gold,  on 
the  land  of  the  rancho  pertaining  to  Jose'  Reyes  Berreyesa,  and  wishing 
to  work  it  in  company,  he  requests  the  Alcalde,  in  conformity  with  the 
ordinance  on  mining,  to  fix  up  notices  in  public  places  of  the  jurisdic- 
tion, in  order  to  secure  the  right  when  the  time  for  juridical  posses- 
sion should  arrive,  according  to  the  laws  on  the  matter. 

This  is  dated  November  22d,  1845.     On  the  3d  of  December  a 
supplement  to  the  petition  is  added,  alleging  that  he  had  taken  out  of 
11 


82 

the  mine,  liquid  quicksilver,  which,  in  order  to  secure  his  right,  he 
also  wishes  to  add  to  the  representation  in  his  statement. 

This  is  followed  by  a  document  signed  by  the  Alcalde  in  these 
words : 

"  There  being  no  deputation  on  mining  in  the  department,  and  this 
being  the  only  time  since  the  settlement  of  Upper  California,  that  a 
mine  has  been  worked  in  conformity  with  the  laws  ;  and  there  being 
no  fc  Juez  de  Letras*  (Professional  Judge)  in  the  2d  district,  I,  the 
Alcalde  of  first  nomination,  citizen  Antonio  Maria  Pico,  accompanied 
by  two  assisting  witnesses,  have  resolved  to  act  in  virtue  of  my  office 
for  want  of  a  Notary  Public,  there  being  none,  for  the  purpose  of 
giving  juridical  possession  of  the  mine  known  by  the  name  of  Santa 
Clara,  in  this  jurisdiction,  situated  on  the  rancho  of  the  retired  Ser- 
geant Jose'  Reyes  Berreyesa,  for  the  time  having  expired,  which  is 
designated  in  the  ordinance  of  mining,  for  the  citizen  Don  Andres 
Castillero  to  show  his  right,  and  also  for  others  to  allege  a  better 
right  between  the  time  of  denouncement  and  this  date,  and  the  mine 
being  found  with  abundance  of  metals  discovered,  the  shaft  made 
according  to  the  rules  of  art,  and  the  working  of  the  mine  producing 
a  large  quantity  of  liquid  quicksilver,  as  shown  by  the  specimens 
which  this  court  has ;  and  as  the  laws  now  in  force  so  strongly  re- 
commend the  protection  of  an  article  so  necessary  for  the  amalga- 
mation of  gold  and  silver  in  the  Republic,  I  have  granted  three 
thousand  varas  of  land  in  all  directions,  subject  to  what  the  general 
ordinance  of  mines  may  direct,  it  being  worked  in  company,  to 
which  I  certify,  the  witnesses  signing  with  me  ;  this  act  of  possession 
being  attached  to  the  rest  of  the  expediente  deposited  in  the  archives 
under  my  charge.  This  not  going  on  stamped  paper  because  there 
is  none,  as  prescribed  by  law. 

Juzgado  of  San  Jos6  Gaudalupe, 
December  30,  1845. 

(Signed)  ANTONIO  MARIA  PICO. 

Assisting  witnesses  : 

Antonio  Sunol, 
Jose  Noriega." 

These  documents  exhibit  the  proceedings  before  the  local  officer 
where  the  mines  are  located. 

The  subsequent  proceedings  took  place  in  Mexico,  before  the  officers 
of  the  Supreme  Government,  and  are  shown  by  the  records  at  the 
capital,  sworn  copies  of  which  are  given  in  evidence. 

These  proceedings  were  commenced  by  a  communication  from  said 
Castillero,  dated  at  the  Mission  of  Santa  Clara,  February  19,  1846, 


83 

which  was  followed  by  a  second,  written  three  days  later,  announcing 
his  discovery  of  the  mine,  and  transmitting  to  his  Excellency,  the 
President,  some  ores  of  cinnabar,  and  a  little  quicksilver. 

He  states  that  he  was  erecting  a  furnace,  that  the  ores  had  yielded 
twenty  per  cent,  and  asked  that  an  assay  may  be  made  by  the  proper 
officer,  under  the  direction  of  the  "  Junta  for  the  encouragement  and 
administration  of  mining.' * 

The  assay  was  duly  made,  and  the  several  reports  incorporated  in 
the  record  showed  the  most  satisfactory  and  gratifying  results,  and  the 
Junta  applied  to  Senor  Castillero  to  know  "  what  kind  of  aid  or  pro- 
tection he  needs  for  the  encouragement  of  his  brilliant  enterprise." 

This  information  was  communicated  to  the  President  of  the  Repub- 
lic by  the  President  of  the  Junta,  on  the  5th  of  May,  and  the  receipt 
thereof,  with  the  expression  of  the  gratification  of  the  President,  was 
acknowledged  by  the  Minister  of  Justice,  to  whose  department  the 
mining  interests  of  the  nation  were  then  committed,  by  letter  of  the 
9th  of  the  same  month. 

This  is  followed  by  the  proposal  of  Castillero,  addressed  to  the 
Junta  for  the  encouragement  of  mining,  bearing  date  May  12th,  1846, 
in  which  he  sets  out  his  discovery,  the  proceedings  in  obtaining  the 
assay  by  order  of  the  Junta,  the  favorable  result,  and  his  desire  to 
benefit  his  country  thereby. 

He  adds, — "In  virtue  of  this  I  have  denounced  and  taken  posses- 
sion not  only  of  said  mine  named  Santa  Clara,  (afterwards  called 
New  Almaden,)  but  also  of  an  extent  of  three  thousand  varas  in  all 
directions  from  said  point. 

"I  have  formed  a  company  to  work  it. 

"I  have  constructed  the  pit,  and  complied  with  all  the  conditions 
prescribed  by  the  ordinance ;  the  mine  yielded  ore  with  the  notable 
circumstance  that  the  specimens  which  I  brought,  and  which  have 
been  assayed,  have  been  taken  out  of  the  mouth." 

His  proposal  is  as  follows  : 

1.  That  the  Junta,  in  the  act  of  approving  the  agreement,  shall 
give  him  a  draft  on  some  mercantile  house  in  Mazatlan  for  five  thou- 
sand dollars. 

2.  He  binds  himself  to  repay  the  amount  by  delivery  of  fifty 
quintals  of  quicksilver,  at  one  hundred  dollars  each,  in  Mazatlan,  within 
six  months. 

3.  The  Junta  shall  put  at  his  disposal  certain  retorts  and  flasks 
then  on  hand,  and  also  a  sum  of  money  sufficient  to  pay  for  certain 
apparatus,  which  it  was  necessary  to  order,  not  exceeding  one  thousand 
dollars. 

4.  Fixes  the  prices  of  the  retorts  and  flasks  which  should  be 
furnished. 

5.  The  price  of  the  same,  the  premium  on  the  draft  on  Mazatlan, 


84 

and  the  money  which  should  be  advanced  to  pay  for  the  apparatus 
to  be  ordered,  were  to  be  repaid  in'  quicksilver  delivered  within  one 
year  at  Mazatlan,  reserving  to  the  Junta  the  right  to  take  one  or  more 
acetones  in  the  mine,  in  part  payment  of  the  sum  which  might  be 
due. 

6.  The  Junta  to  have  the  preference  in  the  purchase  of  all  quick- 
silver in  Mazatlan,  at  100  dollars  per  quintal,  while  the  company  is 
being  formed  and  during  the  period  of  one  year. 

7.  The  Junta  shall  represent  to  the  Supreme  Government  the 
necessity  of  approving  the  possession  which  has  been  given  me  of  the 
mine  by  the  local  authorities  of  California,  in  the  same  terms  in  which 
I  now  hold  it. 

8.  It  shall  also  represent  the  advantage  of  their  being  granted  to 
me,  as  a  colonist,  two  square  leagues  upon  the  land  of  my  mining 
possessions,  with  the  object  of  being  able  to  use  the  wood  for  my 
burnings. 

9.  For  the  performance  of  the  proposed  contract,  the  applicant 
pledges  the  mine  and  its  appurtenances. 

This  document  was  transmitted  to  the  Minister  of  Justice,  with  a 
communication  from  the  Junta,  signed  by  its  President,  recommend- 
ing in  strong  terms  to  the  approval  of  the  Supreme  Government  the 
entire  proposition  relative  to  the  mine. 

In  regard  to  the  proceedings  in  California,  in  the  registration  and 
denouncement  of  the  mine,  it  is  stated  that  "  the  posession  has  not 
been  in  accordance  with  the  ordinance,  inasmuch  as  there  have  been 
granted  him  'pertenencias'  to  the  extent  of  three  thousand  varas,  which 
are  equivalent  to  fifteen  '  pertenencias,'  agreeably  to  the  second  article 
of  the  eighth  title." 

And  the  Junta  then  proceeded  to  obviate  this  objection  by  citing 
the  several  laws  applicable  to  the  case  of  the  discoverer  of  an  abso- 
lutely new  hill  in  which  there  was  no  mine  open,  and  to  the  working 
of  a  mine  by  a  company,  associated  with  the  discoverer  ;  showing 
moreover  the  propriety,  on  account  of  the  extent,  and  the  peculiar  fron- 
tier position  of  the  department  of  California,  of  conceding  to  the  first 
mine  a  large  number  of '  pertenencias'  and  citing  the  first  article, 
eleventh  title,  for  authority  to  grant  to  such  company  every  favor 
and  exemption  which  can  be  granted  them  according  to  the  judgment 
and  direction  of  the  Royal  Tribunal  of  Mines,  and  without  detriment 
to  the  public,  or  to  the  royal  treasury. 

As  to  Castiilero's  application  for  the  grant  to  him,  as  a  colonist, 
of  the  ownership  of  two  square  leagues  of  land  on  the  surface  of  his 
mining  property,  the  Junta  decline  to  express  any  opinion. 

With  these  documents  before  him,  the  President,  ad  interim,  of  the 
Republic,  was  pleased  to  approve  in  all  its  parts  the  agreement  made 
with  that  individual,  in  order  to  commence  the  extraction  of  said  min- 


85 

eral,  and  the  same  was  notified  to  the  Junta  for  the  encouragement  oi 
mining,  on  the  20th  day  of  May,  1846  ;  and  as  to  the  prayer  for  the 
grant  of  land,  it  was  decreed  that  the  proper  order  issue  to  the  Minis- 
ter of  Relations  for  the  proceedings,  so  far  as  his  department  is  con- 
cerned, with  the  understanding  that  the  Supreme  Government  is  fa- 
vorable to  the  petitioner. 

This  decree  was  communicated  to  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations 
on  the  23d  of  May,  that  he  might  issue  the  orders  corresponding. 

The  Mexican  and  Spanish  law  recognized  two  interests  in  real  es- 
tate— the  mining  and  the  colonization  interests. 

The  latter  embraced  the  full  enjoyment  of  premises  for  every  pur- 
pose of  cultivation,  habitation,  and  of  the  various  pursuits  of  civilized  life, 

The  former  secured  the  right  to  the  mineral  which  was  found  de- 
posited in  the  earth. 

These  were  treated  by  the  Government  as  distinct  interests,  anc 
were  conceded  as  such  separately. 

The  methods  of  acquiring  these  interests  by  the  individual  citizen 
were  distinct ;  and  the  tribunals  having  the  power  to  make  concessions 
of  them,  were  not  the  same.  The  laws  known  as  the  "  Colonizatioi 
Laws,"  directed  as  to  one  class  of  grants  ;  the  mining  laws  establishec 
the  course  of  proceedings  as  to  the  other,  and  designated  the  tribunals 
which  should  have  jurisdiction  over  the  subject. 

This  distinction  found  in  the  law,  is  illustrated  in  the  papers  before 
us.  Castillero  sought  to  obtain  a  concession  of  the  two  interests  ;  first 
the  mine  as  such,  and  secondly,  two  square  leagues  of  land,  to  be  helc 
under  the  colonization  laws. 

We  first  enquire  whether  the  proceedings  developed  in  this  recorc 
were  such  as  were  required  by  the  Mexican  law,  in  order  to  inves 
Castillero  with  the  right  to  the  mines,  as  recognized  by  that  law  ? 

At  the  time  of  the  separation  of  Mexico,  by  revolution,  from  Olc 
Spain,  the  code  known  as  the  Mining  Ordinances  of  New  Spain,  adopt 
ed  in  1783,  with  its  subsequent  alterations  and  amendments,  was  ii 
force  ;  and  this,  as  well  as  other  laws  of  the  Kingdom,  were  continuec 
in  force  under  the  new  Government,  so  far  as  they  were  not  incon 
sistent  with  the  new  order  of  things,  or  modified  by  law. 

A  translation  of  these  mining  ordinances  of  1783,  in  full,  is  founc 
in  Rockwell's  Spanish  and  Mexican  Law,  together  with  a  part  of  thi 
celebrated  Commentaries  of  Gamboa  on  the  Mining  Laws  of  Spain 
which,  although  published  before  the  ordinances  of  1783  was  adopted 
is  a  work  of  inestimable  value  at  the  present  time. 

By  the  ordinance  of  1783,  a  Tribunal-General  of  Mines  wasestab 
lished  in  the  city  of  Mexico ;  and  in  the  departments,  Deputations  o; 
Miners,  who  had  exclusive  original  jurisdiction  in  mining  aifairs. 

In  order  to  acquire  the  right  to  a  mine  newly  discovered,  the  dis- 
coverer must  present  a  written  application  to  the  Deputation  of  Mines 


86 

in  the  district — or  if  there  be  none  in  the  district  to  the  nearest  there- 
unto— setting  out  certain  particulars  in  regard  to  himself  and  the  mine 
discovered  ;  the  proper  registry  was  required  to  be  made  by  the  Dep- 
utation and  their  clerk  ;  the  written  statement  was  then  returned  to 
the  discoverer,  and  notices  thereof  posted  in  certain  public  places. 

Within  ninety  days  the  discoverer  was  required  to  open  the  mine,  so 
registered,  to  the  depth  of  ten  varas ;  it  was  to  be  immediately  exam- 
ined by  one  of  the  deputies  and  the  clerk,  or  two  assisting  witnesses, 
and  by  the  mining  professor  of  the  Territory,  taking  an  accurate  ac- 
count of  the  developments,  in  order  to  add  the  same  to  the  entry  in 
the  register. 

This  was  followed  by  the  act  of  possession,  which  was  immediately 
to  be  given  to  the  discoverer  by  the  proper  officer,  in  the  royal  name, 
measuring  him  his  portion,  and  establishing  his  limits. 

By  these  proceedings,  known  as  the  registry,  the  legal  right  of  the 
discoverer  of  a  new  mine  was  secured  therein. 

By  the  Constitution  of  Mexico,  and  by  the  subsequent  decree  of 
May  20th,  1826,  the  Tribunal-General  of  the  Mines  was  estab- 
lished. 

In  these,  nothing  is  said  of  the  local  deputations,  and  it  may  be  a 
question  whether  or  not  it  was  intended  to  abolish  them. 

The  subsequent  decree  of  December  2d,  1842,  makes  another  pro- 
vision on  the  subject. 

It  requires  the  Governors  of  the  Departments,  in  concert  with  the 
Departmental  Juntas,  and  with  the  approval  of  the  Supreme  Govern- 
ment, to  establish  in  each  the  number  of  tribunals  of  the  First  In- 
stance which  are  necessary  within  the  limits,  and  provides  for  the 
election  of  three  Territorial  Deputies,  to  be  elected  in  the  same  man- 
ner as  prescribed  by  the  ancient  ordinance  of  mining,  and  assigns  to 
them  substantially  the  same  powers  and  duties. 

This  decree  also  provides  that : 

The  second  and  third  instances  which  may  arise,  shall  be  proven 
and  decided  in  the  Superior  Courts  of  Justice  of  each  respective  de- 
partment, and  in  the  courts  designated  by  the  laws,  or  which  shall  be 
hereafter  designated. — [Rockwell,  598 — 603. 

This  decree  allows,  by  its  provisions  and  its  preamble,  that  the  dep- 
utations provided  for  in  the  ordinance  of  1783,  were  either  regarded 
as  abolished  altogether,  or  at  least  that  they  did  not  generally  exist  in 
the  districts. 

It  shows  also,  a  discontinuance  of  the  old  mining  districts  in  which 
the  deputations  formerly  held  jurisdiction,  and  provides  for  a  new  di- 
vision of  the  departments,  and  the  establishment  of  such  number  of 
tribunals  of  the  first  instance,  composed  of  deputies,  as  the  Govern- 
ment thereof  might  direct. 

The  proceedings  before  the  Alcalde  appear,  by  the  record  before  us, 


87 

to  have  been,  in  form  at  least,  substantially  in  accordance  with  the  law 
relative  to  registration. 

Several  objections  are  urged  to  the  validity  of  these  proceedings, 
the  principal  of  which  is  that  they  were  had  before  an  Alcalde,  and 
not  before  the  mining  deputation. 

From  the  record  made  by  the  Alcalde,  and  from  other  proofs  made 
in  the  case,  it  appears  that  in  the  whole  department  of  California  there 
was  no  mining  deputation,  or  special  mining  tribunal  of  any  kind  ; 
none  had  been  appointed  here  under  the  ancient  law,  and  no  assign- 
ment of  the  number  of  the  tribunals  in  this  department  had  been  made 
under  the  decree  of  1826. 

Gamboa  treats  the  subject  of  registration  and  denouncement  as  judi- 
cial in  its  character,  and  one,  under  the  laws  of  the  Indies,  in  which 
the  Justices  of  the  Departments,  Chief  Alcaldes  or  Mayors,  and,  by 
way  of  appeal,  the  Royal  Ordinancias,  have  cognizance. — [Rockwell, 
359, 177, 

By  the  Royal  Ordinance  of  1584,  the  new  office  of  Administrator- 
General,  and  an  Administrator  for  each  department  and  mining  dis- 
trict were  established,  and  full  and  exclusive  jurisdiction  given  them 
over  the  entire  subject  of  mines. 

In  Mexico  these  officers  were  never  appointed.— [Rock.  175. 

Gamboa  holds  that,  in  default  of  the  officers  named  in  the  law, 
in  order  to  guard  against  the  serious  consequences  which  might 
otherwise  ensue  from  the  important  interests  involved  in  mining : 
the  ordinance  ought  in  this,  as  in  all  other  respects,  to  be  main- 
tained and  observed  in  that  kingdom,  agreeably  to  the  rules  of  the  mu- 
nicipal laws. 

The  same  ordinance  committed  to  the  charge  of  the  general  and 
special  administrators,  to  be  appointed  under  its  provisions,  the  cogni- 
zance of  certain  specified  subjects  growing  out  of  the  mining  interests, 
and  expressly  prohibited  the  ordinary  tribunals  to  entertain  jurisdic- 
tion of  them ;  yet  the  same  eminent  commentator  declares  that  in 
the  Indies,  where  these  officers  are  wanting,  the  proceedings  are  to  be 
had  in  the  first  instance  before  the  justices,  subject  to  appeal  to  the 
Royal  Audencias.     Rock.  357. 

The  same  ordinance  provides  specifically  that  the  discovery  of  a 
new  mine  shall  be  registered  before  the  mining  justice  within  whose 
jurisdiction  it  shall  be  situate,  and  in  the  presence  of  a  Notary,  who 
shall  send  an  authenticated  copy  of  the  registry  to  the  Administrator, 
in  order  that  the  same  may  be  noted  and  entered  in  the  book  of 
registry. 

The  mining  Justice  or  Judge  was  the  officer  to  whom  the  ordinance 
committed  specially  this  subject  of  registry  ;  but  in  the  district  where 
no  such  officer  existed,  Gamboa  declares,  in  relation  to  the  duties  de- 
volved specially  on  this  officer  by  the  ordinance,  that  the  other  Justices 
must  act  in  the  matter.     Rock.  362. 


88 

It  thus  appears  that  under  the  ancient  ordinance  this  whole  subject 
of  registry,  denouncement,  and  mining  jurisprudence  generally,  was 
committed  to  administrators  and  mining  Justices. 

No  administrators  were  ever  appointed  in  New  Spain,  and  in  many 
portions  of  the  country  there  were  no  mining  Justices  or  Judges. 

And  in  the  portions  of  the  country  where  neither  existed,  the  ordi- 
nary judicial  officers  were  held  to  have  full  jurisdiction  over  the  sub- 
ject. Such  was  the  law  when  the  new  ordinance  of  1788  went  into 
operation,  which  established  the  new  tribunal  of  mining  deputations, 
and  committed  this  subject  to  their  adjudication. 

But  in  many  portions  of  the  country,  of  which  the  department  of 
California  was  one,  these  officers  were  never  appointed ;  in  such  a  case 
it  would  seem  most  natural,  if  not  a  legal  necessity,  that  cognizance 
of  such  a  subject  should  continue  to  be  exercised  by  the  ordinary 
justices. 

Strongly  corroborative  of  this  view  of  the  subject,  is  the  principle 
recognized  throughout  Spanish  and  Mexican  jurisprudence,  to  the 
effect  that  in  the  absence  of  the  higher  officer  the  next  in  grade  suc- 
ceeds to  the  jurisdiction ;  and  that  when  cognizance  of  a  particular 
matter  is  given  to  a  special  tribunal  not  being  in  existence,  the  matter 
reverts  to  the  ordinary  tribunal  as  a  matter  of  course. 

On  this  subject,  Pena  y  Peila,  in  his  "  Practical  Forensica  Mejicana," 
vol.  3,  p.  53,  says :  "The  ordinary  jurisdiction  is  the  most  advantage- 
ous of  all,  for  it  is  the  most  ancient,  the  most  ample,  and  the  most  to 
be  favored  ;  the  fountain  and  the  mother  of  all  the  rest,  that  which 
is  liable  to  no  motive  of  partiality  ;  that  which  therefore  ought  not  to 
be  strictly  construed,  and  in  case  of  doubt  is  to  take  precedence  of 
all  others." 

And  again,  in  the  same  volume,  page  371,  he  says  :  "  A  special 
tribunal  is  so  called,  in  contradistinction  to  the  ordinary,  which  is 
established  for  every  class  of  causes  and  persons,  so  that  every  special 
tribunal  comes  to  be  an  exception  from  the  ordinary  tribunals. 

Hence  it  is,  that  the  exception  being  removed,  the  general  rule 
remains  in  force,  and  that  the  special  being  wanting,  its  jurisdiction 
returns  as  it  were  to  the  fountain,  the  ordinary  tribunals ;  and  it 
reverts  to  them  by  the  very  nature  of  things,  without  any  necessity 
that  the  authority  of  the  suppressed  (or  wanting)  tribunals  should  .be 
given  to  them  de  novo." 

A  fortiori,  when  a  new  tribunal  was  established  to  take  cognizance 
of  a  matter  previously  belonging  to  the  ordinary  justices,  it  would 
seem  that  the  latter  might  act  until  the  new  tribunal  was  established. 

And  such  seems  to  have  been  the  practice  in  Mexico  in  those  dis- 
tricts where  the  deputations  were  never  established  under  the  ordi- 
nances of  1783. 

Two  witnesses,  Domingo  Danglada  and  Francisco  de  Leon,  testify 


89 

to  their  familiarity  with  the  proceedings  in  such  cases  in  Mexico,  and 
declare  that  since  the  establishment  of  the  independence  of  that 
country,  proceedings  in  the  registry  of  a  new  mine  are  had  before  the 
Judge  of  the  First  Instance,  or  where  there  is  no  such  Judge,  the 
nearest  Alcalde. 

In  California,  where  there  was  neither  Judge  of  the  First  Instance, 
nor  Escribano,  the  Alcalde  acted  in  the  capacity  of  the  former.  1 
Cat.  R.  220. 

It  is  claimed,  further,  that  the  right  of  Castillero  to  the  mine  must 
be  declared  invalid  on  account  of  his  failure  to  perform  the  conditions 
imposed  by  ordinance — such  as  paying  damages  to  the  owners  of  the 
soil,  the  payment  of  a  percentage  of  the  product  of  the  mine  to  the 
government,  not  commencing  the  work  of  the  mine  within  six  months, 
or  a  failure  for  four  months  to  prosecute  the  working. 

The  testimony  shows  that  the  process  of  working  the  mine  com- 
menced in  December,  1845,  and  has  been  continued  to  the  present 
time  without  interruption,  and  there  is  no  evidence  tending  to 
show  a  want  of  compliance  with  any  duty  imposed  by  law  on  the 
petitioner. 

We  cannot  presume  a  forfeiture. 

Under  the  facts  presented  in  this  case,  and  with  the  view 
of  the  law  above  expressed,  I  should  feel  great  reluctance  in 
declaring  the  proceedings  before  the  Alcalde,  in  the  registry  of  the 
mine,  invalid. 

There  is  no  claim  that  the  rights  of  any  individual  citizen  were  in- 
fringed by  the  act,  and  the  only  question  is  whether  the  conscience  of 
the  Mexican  Government  was  bound  to  recognize  the  right  of  Castil- 
lero to  the  mines  as  established  by  it. 

I  cannot  but  so  regard  it,  and  the  evidence  of  the  subsequent  re- 
cognition of  the  rights  of  Castillero  by  the  highest  officers  of  the 
Supreme  Government,  to  which  I  shall  again  have  occasion  to  refer, 
shows  that  it  was  evidently  so  regarded  by  them. 

II.  ~T3ut,  secondly,  there  is  another  view  of  the  subject  which  pre- 
sents itself,  tending  to  the  same  result. 

The  ordinances  above  referred  to  contained  the  rules  of  proceed- 
ings as  to  the  mines  of  every  kind ;  but  quicksilver  mines  were  the 
subject  of  frequent  special  ordinances,  both  under  Spanish  and  Mexi- 
can jurisdiction. 

By  the  ordinance  of  1783,  quicksilver  mines  might  be  registered 
by  the  new  discoverer  like  other  mines  ;  but  it  was  on  the  express 
condition  of  giving  an  account  of  them  to  the  viceroy,  and  to  the  sub- 
delegate  of  quicksilver  mines  of  Mexico,  in  order  that  it  might  be 
12 


90 

determined  whether  they  should  be  worked  on  account  of  the  Royal 
Treasury,  making  some  equitable  reward  to  the  discoverer,  or  by  the 
latter,  he  delivering  all  the  quicksilver  which  he  might  extract  into 
the  royal  store-house,  under  stipulated  terms  and  prices.  Rock.  54, 
131. 

Previous  to  the  date  of  this  ordinance,  the  sale  and  supply  of 
quicksilver  to  the  silver  mines  in  Mexico,  was  a  royal  monopoly. 

It  was  sent  by  the  government  of  old  Spain  to  officers  appointed 
here,  and  by  them  distributed  among  the  mines  at  fixed  prices  and 
according  to  established  rules,  while  all  importations,  and  traffic  in  the 
article  on  private  account,  were  prohibited  under  the  most  severe 
penalties. 

The  supply  of  this  article,  so  indispensable  in  the  working  of  the 
mines  of  gold  and  silver,  came  from  Almaden,  in  old  Spain,  and  the 
new  mines  of  Peru,  while  the  working  of  quicksilver  mines  in  New 
Spain  was  prohibited. 

Three  instances  are  mentioned  by  Gamboa,  where  such  mines  were 
discovered,  and  the  working  of  them  commenced,  when  the  autho- 
rities interposed  and  caused  them  to  be  stopped  up. 

These  instances  occurred  in  1718,  1780  and  1745,  and  in  two 
of  them  the  orders  of  prohibition  were  approved  by  the  king.  Bock. 
139. 

By  the  ordinance  of  intendants  of  1803,  the  office  of  comptroller 
was  continued  in  Mexico,  in  order  to  carry  out  the  ordinances  for  the 
distribution  and  sale  of  the  prohibited  article.     Rock.  395. 

In  1811,  the  geiteral  and  extraordinary  Cortes,  by  decree,  reciting 
the  evils  resulting  from  the  monopoly  of  quicksilver,  and  from  the 
provision  in  the  ordinance  of  1783,  reserving  the  right  of  the  govern- 
ment to  work  all  newly  discovered  mines  of  it  on  its  own  account, 
repealed  these  provisions,  making  it  an  article  of  free  trade,  and  ex- 
empt from  all  taxes,  including  the  fifth,  which  was  previously  required 
to  be  paid  by  the  miner. 

This  decree  further  recognised  the  right  of  discovery  and  working 
of  such  mines  by  individuals,  with  the  right  of  acquiring  a  title 
thereto,  under  the  general  regulations  relative  to  mines.     Rock.  396. 

On  the  restoration  to  the  throne  of  King  Ferdinand  VII,  this, 
among  other  decrees  of  the  Cortes  was  declared  null  and  of  no  effect. 

By  a  subsequent  Royal  decree,  proclaimed  June  29th,  1821,  in 
which  the  mines  are  freed  from  certain  duties,  provision  is  still  made 
for  continuing  the  supply  of  quicksilver  to  the  Mexican  miners, 
through  the  officers  having  charge  of  that  subject.     Rock.  407. 

It  is  doubtful  whether  these  two  last  mentioned  decrees  had  ever 
any  practical  operation  in  Mexico. 

After  the  declaration  of  independence,  the  Sovereign  Provincial 
Committee,  then  exercising  the  powers  of  the  government,  on  the  22 


91 

November,  1821,  abolished  many  of  the  impositions  on  the  business 
of  mining  generally,  and  declared  quicksilver  entirely  exempt  from 
tax,  whether  it  proceeds  from  Europe  or  Asia,  or  be  drawn  irom  the 
mines  of  the  empire,  "  Mexico,"  and  the  same  provisions  were  re- 
enacted  by  the  Sovereign  Constituent  Congress,  by  decree  of  13th 
February,  1824.  In  the  same  year  the  Congress  gave  to  Don  Juan 
B.  Binnon,  the  exclusive  right  to  work  quicksilver  mines  of  the  Terri- 
tory of  the  Republic,  for  the  five  years  preceeding  July  24th,  1831, 
without  prejudice  to  the  right  of  those  who  might  have  acquired  such 
mines  at  the  commencement  of  said  term.  Rock.  597.  By  decree 
of  May  20th,  1826,  the  Tribunal  General  of  Mexico,  was  abolished. 

On  the  12th  May,  1838,  a  premium  of  five  dollars  on  each  quintal 
of  quicksilver  imported,  not  French  property,  was  given  by  law,  to 
continue  during  the  blockade  by  the  French,  and  six  months  thereaf- 
ter.    Rock.  598,  601. 

But  the  most  important  decree  on  this  subject  is  the  edict  of  Gen'l 
Bravo,  then  President  of  the  Republic,  made  December  2d,  1842, 
establishing  the  "  Board  of  Encouragement  and  Improvement  of  the 
Mining  Corporation." 

To  this  Board  was  committed  the  economical  and  faithful  manage- 
ment of  the  mining  fuuds,  and  they  were  specially  required  to  pro- 
pose to  the  Supreme  Government  a  regulation  determining  the  cases 
and  modes  in  which  the  working  of  quicksilver  mines  in  the  Republic 
is  to  be  encouraged  by  rewards,  or  in  any  other  way  promoted. 

They  were  to  have  charge  of  the  fund  arising  from  the  distribution 
of  quicksilver,  as  provided  in  the  edict,  and  in  the  management,  pre- 
servation, and  safe-keeping  of  the  stock  of  quicksilver  itself. 

The  Board  is  limited  in  the  disposal  of  the  funds  in  their  charge  to 
the  objects  specified  in  the  edict,  and  to  such  as  should  previously  be 
approved  by  the  Government.     Rock.  603,  605. 

A  decree  of  Santa  Anna,  of  the  24th  May,  1853,  declares  that  quick- 
silver shall  be  sold  throughout  the  nation  without  permits,  passes,  or 
other  custom  house  papers,  and  that  derived  from  the  possessions  of 
tbe  Republic  shall  be  subject  to  no  general  or  municipal  impost,  and 
that  825,000  shall  be  granted  to  each  of  the  four  first  proprietors  who 
should  extract  in  one  year  from  the  mines  of  the  Republic  2,000 
quintals  of  liquid  quicksilver. 

It  also  provides  for  a  premium  of  five  dollars  for  each  quintal  which 
should  be  produced  from  these  mines  within  three  years,  and  exempts 
the  laborers  in  such  mines  from  military  duty  and  personal  taxes. 
Rock.  609. 

By  decree  of  October  7,  1823,  foreigners  were  authorised  to  hold 
shares  in  mines,  for  the  working  of  which  they  should  advance  money 
to  the  proprietors  ;  and  by  that  of  March  11,  1842,  their  privileges 
were  so  enlarged  as  to  entitle  *hem,  in  certain  cases,  to  acquire  own- 


92 

ership  of  mines  (including  quicksilver)  of  which  they  might  be  discov- 
erers, in  conformity  with  the  ordinances  on  the  subject ;  and  by  decree 
of  July  12,  1842,  the  right  to  acquire  property  therein  was  given  to 
them,  when  they  restored  old  mines  which  had  fallen  into  disuse  or 
been  abandoned.     lb.  610,  6U ,  613. 

The  decree  of  September  23,  1843,  is  the  last  which  it  will  be 
necessary  to  cite,  and  this  is  the  more  important  in  the  case  under 
consideration,  as  it  defines  more  clearly  the  powers  of  the  Board  for 
the  encouragement  of  mining,  before  whom  the  proceedings  were  had, 
in  the  city  of  Mexico,  on  which  the  claimant  bases,  in  a  great  measure, 
his  claim.     lb.  618. 

The  decree  requires  the  Board  to  appoint  a  Commission  in  each  de- 
partment of  the  Republic  to  explore  and  examine  the  quicksilver  mines 
situated  therein,  and  to  report  whether  there  are  any  mines  of  quick- 
silver there,  which  have  been  or  which  can  be  worked,  designating 
those  which  are  best,  their  present  condition,  the  work  necessary  to 
put  them  in  order,  the  alloy  contained  in  the  yield  which  might  be 
produced,  and  the  cost  of  extraction  and  working. 

The  Board  of  Encouragement,  in  view  of  such  reports,  was  author- 
ised to  decide  upon  the  places  which  should  be  selected  for  these 
mines,  and  the  sum  which  should  be  expended  in  putting  them  in  ope- 
ration. 

Two  methods  for  rendering  aid  out  of  the  funds  at  their  disposal,  in 
the  opening  and  working  of  the  mines,  are  specified  in  the  decree. 

The  first  is  by  a  loan  of  the  funds  necessary  for  the  purpose,  at  the 
usual  interest  of  six  per  cent.,  under  an  agreement  that  the  same  shall 
be  returned  at  a  specified  time,  the  same  to  be  secured  by  bond,  to 
the  satisfaction  of  the  Board,  to  be  invested  exclusively  in  the  busi- 
ness in  question ;  and  for  this  purpose  the  Board  should  have  the  power 
to  appoint  a  supervisor  of  the  mine,  who  should  be  paid  by  the  owner 
thereof. 

The  second  method  was  by  furnishing  all  the  necessary  supplies  for 
working  the  mine,  taking  the  exclusive  charge,  and  making  distribu- 
tion to  the  owner  of  his  share  of  the  profits. 

The  Board  was  required  to  draw  up  a  regulation  for  supplies  ac- 
cording to  the  basis  of  these  two  methods,  submitting  the  same  to  the 
Government  for  its  approval. 

It  does  not  appear  in  the  case  that  any  commission  was  ever  ap- 
pointed for  the  Department  of  California  under  the  decree,  and  from  the 
short  time  which  elapsed  between  the  date  of  it  and  the  discovery  of 
the  New  Almaden  mine  by  Castillero,  it  is  almost  certain  that  no  such 
examination  had  been  made. 

It  is  also  equally  certain  that  the  proceedings  had  by  the  Board  for 
the  Encouragement  of  Mining,  on  the  application  of  Castillero  and 
by  the  Supreme  Government,  on  their  official  report,  was  under  the 
provisions  of  this  decree. 


93 

The  Board  decided  upon  the  importance  of  working  the  mine,  and 
on  the  propriety  of  making  advances  from  the  funds  at  their  disposal 
to  Castillero  for  that  purpose  ;  they  invited  proposals  from  him  as  to 
the  advances  necessary,  and  transmitted  them  according  to  the  9th 
Article  of  the  decree,  to  the  President,  for  his  approval ;  and  that 
officer,  by  his  decree  thereon,  approved  the  same  so  far  it  related  to 
the  opening  and  working  of  the  mine  by  Castillero. 

In  my  opinion,  this  operated  as  a  contract  under  the  law. 

It  is  so  stated  to  be  in  the  decree  of  approval  by  the  President,  and 
in  a  report  by  Lafragua,  Minister  of  Relations  to  the  Mexican  Con- 
gress in  1846,  extracts  from  which  are  made  evidence  in  the  case, 
authenticated  by  the  testimony  of  said  Lafragua,  it  is  clearly  shown 
that  both  the  Junta  and  the  Government  regarded  it  as  a  complete  and 
binding  contract ;  and  it  is  also  alleged  therein  that  Castillero  was  on 
his  way  to  Mazatlan  to  cash  the  draft  specified  in  the  agreement, 
when  the  war  with  the  United  States  broke  out  and  compelled  the 
suspension  of  payments  from  the  fund. 

In  one  respect  the  proposition  of  Castillero  differed  in  letter  from 
the  terms  of  the  decree  under  which  it  was  made. 

That  decree  contemplated  that  where  money  was  advanced  to  the 
discoverer,  to  enable  him  to  work  a  mine,  the  fund  should  receive  an 
interest  of  six  per  cent,  on  the  sum  advanced. 

In  this  case,  the  whole  was  to  be  paid  in  quicksilver,  delivered  at 
Mazatlan,  within  a  limited  time,  at  the  stipulated  price  of  one  hundred 
dollars  per  quintal. 

In  their  communication  to  the  Government  the  Board  remark  upon 
this,  and  add,  that  it  cannot  be  doubted  that  the  proposition  aifords 
greater  advantages  to  the  fund  than  the  said  interest. 

The  Board  was  charged  with  the  purchase  of  quicksilver,  and  with 
the  distribution  of  it  among  the  gold  and  silver  mines  of  the  Republic, 
at  cost  and  expenses. 

The  furnishing  of  quicksilver  to  the  Board  at  a  point  where  it 
was  needed  for  use,  was  even  more  advantageous  than  the  payment  of 
coin,  and  it  was  competent  for  the  Board,  with  the  approval  of  the 
Government,  to  stipulate  to  receive  both  principle  and  interest  in  that 
article.  The  quicksilver  to  be  delivered  at  the  price  stipulated,  was 
considered  by  the  Board,  and  also  by  the  President  in  his  approval,  as 
equivalent  in  value  to  the  sum  to  be  advanced  and  the  interest  there- 
on ;  and  the  contract  required  it  to  be  received  therefor.  Consider- 
ing the  ample  powers  entrusted  to  the  Board  and  the  President,  I 
think  the  terms  of  this  contract  are  within  the  scope  of  their  authority, 
and  cannot  be  invalidated  on  the  ground  of  a  departure  in  this  respect 
from  the  terms  of  the  decree. 

This  brings  us  to  the  question  whether  this  action  of  the  Junta  and 
the  President,  could  make  valid  the  rights  of  Castillero  in  the  mine 


94 

claimed  to  have  been  acquired  by  the  registration  before  the  Alcalde, 
if  the  same  was  informal,  and  without  authority,  or  if  not,  whether 
these  proceedings  were  sufficient  to  establish  his  right  to  the  mine, 
without  a  formal  registration  before  the  local  authorities. 

The  Junta  was  not  an  appellant  tribunal.  It  had  no  authority  to 
review  the  proceedings  of  any  local  officer,  and  to  affirm  or  disaffirm 
his  decision. 

Nor  does  it  appear  to  have  had  any  authority  in  cases  of  registra- 
tion or  denouncement,  as  known  to  the  laws  in  existence  at  the  time 
of  its  organization. 

If  registration  before  the  Alcalde  was  not  valid,  the  Junta  had  no 
power  to  make  it  so  by  virtue  of  any  authority  to  review  and  affirm  the 
acts  of  the  Alcalde. 

But  in  my  opinion,  although  not  an  appellate  power  to  review  the 
acts  of  the  Alcalde,  it  was  sufficient,  with  the  approval  of  the  Govern- 
ment, to  establish  the  rights  of  Castillero  in  the  mine,  without  a  pre- 
vious official  registration  before  the  local  officer. 

Registry  was  nothing  more  than  the  presentation  to  the  proper  offi- 
cer of  a  written  description  of  the  person  who  had  found  the  mine,  and 
the  place  where  it  was  situated,  with  an  exhibition  of  a  specimen  of 
the  ore,  and  a  claim  of  the  rights  of  the  discoverer  therein. 

This  was  followed  by  the  registry  thereof  made  by  the  officer,  and 
the  subsequent  assignment  of  boundaries  and  giving  possession. 
Rock.,  p.  173. 

This  simple  act  perfected  in  the  discoverer  all  the  right  in  the  mine 
which  the  citizen  could  ever  acquire.  The  right  of  every  one  in  this 
simple  manner  to  possess  the  mines,  is  what  is  meant  by  the  saying 
often  repeated  in  the  books,  that  the  mines  were  common  to  all ;  the 
tribunal  was  usually  at  the  door  of  the  discoverer  or  denouncer ;  the 
process  without  expense  ;  the  proceedings  with  little  formality,  and 
the  interest,  once  acquired,  was  held  under  the  terms  of  decrees  and 
customs  well  known  to  all. 

But  this  method  of  acquiring  the  right  to  a  mine,  might  not  be,  and 
perhaps  never  was,  the  only  one  by  which  the  miner's  right  might  be 
secured.  While  the  mines  continued  a  part  of  the  royal  prerogative, 
the  method  of  acquiring  them  was  subject  to  be  changed  or  modified 
at  any  time  by  the  decree  of  the  King. 

And  after  the  independence  of  Mexico,  though  the  old  laws  remained 
in  force,  when  not  Contrary  to  the  new  order  of  things,  or  expressly 
annulled,  the  sovereign  power  of  the  new  nation  might  at  any  time 
have  changed  the  mariner  of  acquiring  such  rights. 

Such  I  regard  the  effects  of  the  decrees  passed  subsequently  to  the 
independence,  and  especially  of  those  of  the  2d  of  December,  1842, 
and  of  the  25th  of  September,  1843,  establishing  and  prescribing  the 
powers  and  duties  of  the  Board  for  the  Encouragment  of  Mining. 


95 

The  policy  of  the  Royal  Government  of  Spain  was  to  monopolise  the 
supply  of  quicksilver  for  the  mines  in  Mexico,  to  prohibit  all  importa- 
tion by  others,  and  all  traffiic  in  it  by  individuals,  and  finally  to  in- 
terdict the  opening  and  working  the  mines  of  it  which  might  be  known 
throughout  Mexico. 

When  the  independent  government  was  established,  the  policy  in 
Mexico  was  changed.  It  was  then  an  object  to  render  all  importa- 
tions, especially  from  Old  Spain,  unnecessary ;  and  in  order  to  obtain 
the  indispensable  supply  for  the  working  of  the  gold  and  silver  mines, 
to  give  every  inducement  which  the  Government  could  afford,  to  dis- 
cover and  open,  and  render  productive,  the  mines  of  quicksilver. 

Hence  the  decrees  making  quicksilver  a  free  article  of  commerce, 
and  exempt  from  all  duties,  whether  imported  or  obtained  from  the 
mines  of  the  country ;  the  allowance  of  a  Government  premium  of 
$5  per  quintal ;  the  raising  of  funds  from  specified  sources  for  the 
purchase  of  quicksilver,  to  be  distributed  among  the  mines  ;  the  ex- 
emption of  the  miners  from  duties,  taxes,  and  arrests  ;  the  creation  of 
officers  to  take  charge  of  the  subject,  and  to  use  money  to  promote 
the  working  of  such  mines. 

To  the  new  tribunal,  the  Board  for  the  Encouragement  of  Mines,  was 
especially  committed  the  charge  of  determining,  with  the  approval  of 
the  Government,  the  manner  of  obtaining  quicksilver,  and  the  cases 
and  modes  in  which  the  working  of  quicksilver  mines  in  the  Republic 
should  be  encouraged,  by  rewards,  or  in  any  other  way  promoted. 

By  the  decree  of  September  25th,  1843,  the  Board  was  authorized 
to  decide  upon  the  places  which  should  be  established  in  preference, 
and  the  sum  which  should  be  advanced  to  put  the  establishments  in 
operation,  tlfe  same  to  be  approved  by  the  Government ;  and  the  two 
methods  of  furnishing  supplies — first,  by  an  advance  of  the  necessary 
amount,  at  an  annual  interest ;  and  second,  by  becoming  supplier  of 
the  mine,  directing  its  operations  and  sharing  the  profits — show  both 
the  anxiety  of  the  Government  to  open  new  mines  of  that  metal  in  the 
Republic,  and  the  broad  discretionary  powers  over  the  subject  given  to 
the  Board. 

All  the  mines  in  the  Republic  which  had  not  already  been  acquired 
by  individuals,  agreeably  to  former  decrees,  whether  on  the  National 
domain,  or  on  lands  ceded  under  the  colonization  laws,  belonged  to  the 
nation. 

Commissioners  were  appointed  to  explore  and  discover  them,  and  it 
can  scarcely  be  doubted,  if  such  were  newly  discovered,  to  which  no 
individual  rights  had  attached,  the  Board  had  full  power  to  arrange 
for  opening  and  working  with  any  individual,  and  upon  any  terms  au- 
thorized by  the  law  and  approved  by  the  President. 

I  do  not  suppose,  in  such  a  case,  that  they  were  required  to  make  a 
registry  before  the  local  authority,  before  such  arrangement  could  be 
made. 


96 

None  but  the  discoverer  could  proceed  to  make  a  registry,  and  it 
seems  to  me  preposterous  to  say  that  the  Board,  the  officers  of  the 
Government,  could  not  make  a  contract  with  an  individual  to  work  a 
mine  under  the  terms  of  the  law,  which  should  be  binding  on  the  Gov- 
ernment, unless  a  registry  was  had  before  the  local  authorities  in  the 
first  place. 

The  Board  might  contract  for  the  working  of  the  mines  for  five,  or 
ten,  or  fifty  years,  on  certain  terms. 

This  is  as  much  the  act  of  the  Government,  and  would  seem  to 
transfer  the  Government  right  to  the  mine  to  the  contractor,  as  surely 
as  the  proceeding  in  registration  transfers  to  the  discoverer  the  pre- 
cise interest  in  the  mine,  which  the  law  declared  he  should  obtain  by 
his  registration. 

Nor  do  I  think  there  is  anything  to  prevent  an  arrangement,  under 
the  terms  of  the  decree,  with  the  new  discoverer  of  a  mine,  upon  the 
proper  evidence  being  laid  before  the  Board,  to  work  the  same,  al- 
though he  has  not  proceeded  to  a  registry  in  the  place  of  its  lo- 
cality. 

If,  through  fraud  or  misapprehension,  by  chance,  individual  rights 
previously  acquired  should  be  infringed,  in  such  a  case  the  party 
would  not  be  without  a  remedy  ;  but  where,  as  in  the  case  before  us, 
no  such  infringement  is  suggested,  the  Government  itself  would  be 
bound  by  its  agreement  with  the  contract. 

From  the  very  nature  of  the  case,  such  a  contract  made  with  the 
national  authorities,  upon  a  subject-matter  recognized  to  belong  to  the 
nation,  implies  a  possession  of,  and  a  right  in,  the  mine. 

That  interest  would  be  such  as  is  specified  in  the  contract,  and 
where  that  is  silent  as  to  the  character  and  nature  of  tHfe  tenure,  the 
laws  and  recognized  customs  of  the  country  as  to  such  right,  must 
govern. 

The  right  to  contract  for  the  working  of  a  mine,  on  such  terms  as 
the  Board,  with  the  approval  of  the  Supreme  Government,  might  see 
fit,  necessarily  implies  that  the  contractor  might  receive  an  interest  in 
the  mines  different  from  that  secured  to  the  new  discoverer  by  the 
act  of  registration.  The  size  of  the  mine  might  be  enlarged,  the  work 
of  opening  and  working  it  be  modified,  and  the  multifarious  and  mi- 
nute directions  by  which  the  right  of  the  new  discoverer  under  a  regis- 
tration were  burdened  and  restricted,  might  be  modified  by  the  con- 
tract in  any  of  those  methods  which  the  discretion  of  the  public  officers 
should  dictate  as  the  most  effectual  to  render  the  mine  productive. 

That  this  was  the  design  of  establishing  the  Board,  and  of  giving 
full  power  over  the  mines,  which  are  specified  in  the  decree,  I  cannot 
doubt. 

But  let  us  suppose  that  a  contract  for  the  working  of  a  mine  can 


97 

confer  no  right  in  it  to  the  contractor,  who  is  the  discoverer,  unless  he 
first  registers  that  discovery  in  the  proper  locality. 

The  present  case  may  illustrate  most  fully  the  consequence. 

In  the  locality  of  San  Jose'  there  was  no  person,  but  an  Alcalde, 
to  whom  the  discoverer  could  apply  for  registration,  and  the  Law 
Agent  argues  upon  us  that  he  had  no  authority,  and  that  his  act  is 
therefore  totally  void.  There  were  other  districts,  also,  where  the  offi- 
cers specially  designated  by  name  in  the  regulation  of  1783,  for 
the  purpose,  were  not  in  being.  Admit  that  in  all  these  no 
person  was  authorized  to  make  such  registrations,  and  in  Califor- 
nia, where  nothing  but  the  curse  of  blindness,  it  would  seem,  could 
prevent  the  discovery  of  the  richest  mines  at  almost  every  step, 
no  registration  could  be  made,  and  consequently  no  individual 
could  entitle  himself  to  work  any  mine  which  he  might  have  discov- 
ered. 

Can  it  be  possible  that  the  Board,  who  were  required  to  encourage 
mining  everywhere  throughout  the  Republic,  could  here  do  nothing  to 
foster  it  when  new  mines  were  discovered  ;  when  premiums  were  of- 
fered for  every  pound  of  quicksilver  produced  in  the  country  ?  Was 
there  no  right  in  any  of  the  executive  officers  of  the  Government,  to 
arrange  for  the  rich  supp  ly  which  the  mine  afforded,  simply  because 
no  officer  at  the  spot  could  make  a  registration,  or  entertain  proceed- 
ings for  a  denouncement  ?  With  the  duty  imposed  on  the  Board  to 
send  a  commission  into  every  department  to  examine  and  explore  sci- 
entifically in  search  of  quicksilver  mines,  and  to  report  fully  on  the 
subject  of  their  value,  and  the  expense  of  working  them,  can  it  be, 
that  however  rich  might  be  the  deposits  discovered,  no  contract  for 
working  them  could  be  made,  for  want  of  officers  to  make  the  registra- 
tion ?  Or  that,  with  money  at  their  command,  which  the  Board  was 
authorized  to  advance  for  the  purpose,  with  full  powers  to  contract  at 
the  discretion  of  themselves  and  the  Government,  the  great  object 
which  lay  at  the  bottom  of  the  Mexican  political  economy,  and  for 
which  more  than  any  other,  they  provided  by  law,  the  supplying  of 
quicksilver  for  the  working  of  the  mines,  must,  for  this  reason,  prove 
abortive-? 

In  my  judgment,  the  provisions  of  these  enactments  are  not  thus 
inert  and  inoperative. 

I  think  the  powers  of  the  Board,  with  the  approval  of  the  President, 
were  amply  sufficient,  whether  Castillero  had  obtained  a  registration 
of  his  discovery  or  not,  to  make  with  him  a  contract  to  work  the  mine 
according  to  the  terms  of  the  decrees  of  1842  and  1843,  and  that  said 
contract  was  binding  on  the  Mexican  Government. 

The  rights  which  it  secured  to  him  were  such  as  are  specified  in  the 
contract,  and  where  that  is  silent  they  are  such  as  the  laws  and  cus- 

13 


98 

toms  at  that  time  recognized  as  belonging  to  a  mining  possession,  ac- 
quired in  the  usual  manner  by  registration  or  denouncement. 

In  either  aspect  of  the  case,  I  think  the  petitioner  has  established 
his  right  to  the  mine. 

III.  The  next  inquiry  is  whether  the  interest  thus  acquired  is  of  such 
a  character  as  to  bring  it  within  a  class  of  subjects  over  which  this 
Commission  has  jurisdiction. 

This  must  depend  on  the  character  of  the  interest  or  estate  which 
Castillero  took  by  the  proceedings. 

The  Act  of  Congress  of  March  3d,  1851  limits  the  jurisdiction  of 
this  Commission  "  to  persons  claiming  lands  in  California  by  virtue  of 
any  right  or  title  derived  from  the  Spanish  or  Mexican  Government ;" 
and  requires  the  Commission  to  decide  upon  the  validity  of  the  said 
claim,  entering  therein  a  decree  of  confirmation  or  rejection. 

The  right  in  the  mine  which  was  given  to  Castillero  by  the  con- 
tract, is  the  same  as  that  which  was  secured  to  the  discoverer  under 
the  Mexican  laws  by  a  registration ;  whether  he  held  by  virtue 
of  the  registry  before  the  Alcalde,  or  under  the  contract,  then,  the  es- 
tate was  the  same. 

What  was  the  interest  which  was  vested  in  the  discoverer  then  by 
the  act  of  registration  ? 

In  Spain  the  mines,  wherever  found  in  the  Kingdom,  were  the  prop- 
erty of  the  Royal  Crown. 

Two  interests,  as  I  have  already  said,  were  recognized  in  land, 
which  were  different  in  their  character,  and  disposed  of  as  distinct  in- 
terests and  by  different  officers,  yet  both  connected  with  and  insepa- 
rable from  the  realty  :  the  one  carrying  the  enjoyment  cf  the  land  for 
agricultural  and  all  domestic  purposes — the  other  securing  the  min- 
eral deposit  in  the  earth,  with  the  right  to  work  the  same  in  the  man- 
ner designated  by  law. 

The  former  right  was  secured  to  the  individual  citizen  by  grant  un- 
der the  colonization  laws  ;  the  latter  by  registry  or  denouncement. 

The  colonization  grant  gave  the  grantee  no  right  to  the  mines  hid- 
den in  the  soil,  nor  had  he  any  preference  over  a  stranger  in  acquir- 
ing a  right  to  them. — Mock.  49,  43. 

In  the  ordinance  of  1783,  the  interest  in  the  mines  acquired  by  the 
citizen  is  declared  to  be  "  in  property  and  possession  in  such  manner 
that  they  may  sell,  exchange,  (pass  by  will  either  in  the  way  of  inherit- 
ance or  legacy)  or  in  any  other  manner  dispose  of  all  their  property 
in  them,  upon  the  terms  on  which  they  themselves  possess  it,  and  to 
persons  legally  capable  of  acquiring  it." 

The  interest  acquired  by  the  discoverer,  under  his  registration,  is 
spoken  of  in  the  ordinance  as  a  grant ;  and  he  is  said  to  acquire,  with 
the  right  to  hold  for  mining  purposes,  the  extent  of  land  described  in 


99 

the  ordinance,  and  which  shall  be  marked  out,  and  possession  given 
with  due  formality. 

Foreigners  are  prohibited  "  from  acquiring  or  working  mines  as 
their  own  property  ;"  but  to  all  subjects  "  the  King  grants  the  mines 
of  every  species  of  metal,"  under  the  condition  of  the  payment  to  the 
royal  treasury  of  the  proportion  of  metal  reserved  thereto,  and  that 
they  shall  work  the  mines  subject  to  the  provisions  of  the  ordinance. — 
Jb.,  49,  50,  55. 

Escreche  describes  grants  to  miners  as  "  made  for  an  unlimited 
time,  and  so  long  as  the  grantees  comply  with  the  lawful  conditions 
they  may  dispose  of  the  right  thereto,  and  of  the  products  thereof,  as 
of  any  other  property." 

Throughout  the  ordinances  and  laws  on  the  subject  of  mines  such  a 
right  is  denominated  "  property,"  and  the  process  of  denouncement  or 
registration  is  said  to  be  "  acquiring  the  mine."  The  boundaries  once 
fixed  must  remain  forever,  unless  changed  by  due  competent  author- 
ity. 

The  holder  of  such  an  interest  is  variously  denominated  the  owner 
of  the  property,  the  "  mine  owner,"  and  all  the  terms  which  may  im- 
ply complete  ownership  of  the  mines,  subject  only  to  be  defeated  by 
violation  of  the  requirements  of  the  mining  laws  which  everywhere 
abound. 

Gamboa  discusses  at  length  the  right  of  the  Crown  to  the  mines, 
and  the  character  of  the  interest  conveyed  to  the  subject  therein  by 
the  discovery  and  registration  of  a  new  mine,  or  the  denouncement  <5f 
an  old  one. 

These,  he  says,  give  an  interest  merely,  and  not  a  separate  and  ab- 
solute property  in  them,  and  which  authorizes  him  to  deal  with  them 
in  such  manner  only  as  shall  be  consistent  with  the  regulations  of  the 
ordinances. 

And  although  the  grant  gives  a  right  of  property,  yet  it  only 
amounts  to  a  cession  of  a  partial  interest,  and  not  to  an  absolute  trans- 
fer, the  supreme  right  of  property  remaining  vested  in  the  Crown. — 
lb.  130. 

By  the- laws  of  Castile,  the  mines  were  granted  in  possession  and 
property  to  the  citizen,  with  power  to  dispose  of  them  as  of  anything  of 
their  own. 

The  existence  of  the  right  to  the  mines  in  the  Crown  is  easily  rec- 
onciled with  the  exercise  of  a  right  of  property  over  them  on  the  part 
of  the  subject,  who  has  secured  a  right  in  them  by  proceeding  under 
the  law  of  registration  or  denouncement. 

In  fact,  such  individual  right  is  derived  from  the  crown  through 
the  ordinances,  and  is  not  only  consistent  with  it,  but  depends  upon 
it. 

This  grant  of  the  sovereign,  therefore,  continues  Gamboa,  conveys 
to  his  subjects  a  direct  and  beneficial  right  of  property. 


100 

It  must  follow  beyond  dispute,  as  a  consequence  of  their  being  made 
over  to  the  latter,  with  power  to  dispose  of  them  as  of  a  thing  of  his 
own,  that  all  the  incidents  of  property  must  attach  in  favor  of  the 
proprietor,  and  that  they  may  therfore  be  exchanged,  sold,  leased  or 
alienated,  by  contract,  donation,  or  inheritance ;  may  be  given  as  a 
portion  in  marriage,  or  may  be  charged  with  rent.     lb.  131,  133. 

The  numerous  laws  relating  to  mining,  impose  on  the  miner  many 
onerous  duties  in  the  manner  of  working  his  mine,  requiring  large 
outlays  of  capital,  with  a  view  to  make  permanent  improvements, 
necessarily  implying  the  permanency  of  the  interest  which  he  holds 
in  the  works. 

This  property  is  subject  to  but  two  conditions  :  first,  paying  the 
dues  to  the  royal  treasury,  and  secondly,  conforming  in  the  manage- 
ment of  the  mining  operations  to  the  requirements  of  the  ordinances. 

While  the  miner  complied  with  these  terms,  there  was  no  provision 
by  which  he  could  be  deprived  of  his  property. 

Government  itself  could  not  deprive  him  of  his  inviolable  right. 

Under  the  government  of  Mexico,  after  the  establishment  of  Inde- 
pendence, the  condition  of  the  miner,  in  reference  to  his  interest  in 
that  kind  of  property,  was  made  better  than  under  the  old  regime, 
by  freeing  him  from  payments  in  the  public  treasury,  and  granting 
him  a  premium  on  every  quintal  of  quicksilver  produced  from  his  es- 
tablishment. 

The  mining  right  was  also  accompanied  with  all  the  privileges  of 
occupying  sufficient  of  the  surface  of  the  land  for  the  extensive  work- 
ing of  the  mine  beneath,  and  for  the  establishment  of  the  necessary 
permanent  buildings  for  the  smelting  of  the  ores,  on  payment  to  the 
proprietor  of  the  damages  assessed  by  the  persons  appointed  for  their 
asssessment. 

The  interest  of  the  miner  who  acquired  his  mine  by  registration  or 
denouncement,  was  clearly  recognized  by  Spanish  and  Mexican  law 
as  one  of  the  most  useful  and  sacred  estates  which  the  citizen  could 
acquire  or  hold. 

It  was  not  a  mere  license  to  carry  away  metal,  but  a  fixed  right  of 
property  in  the  deposits,  with  the  fullest  authority  for  excavation 
beneath,  and  occupancy  on  the  surface  for  the  needed  hacienda. 

If  it  be  said  the  right  was  held  subject  to  forfeiture,  if  the  mines 
were  not  worked  according  to  the  requirements  of  the  laws,  it  is 
answered  that  these  were  conditions  subsequent,  and  the  estate  con- 
tinues good  until  a  breach  of  the  terms  of  the  grant. 

The  colonization  grant  is  often  subject  to  conditions  subsequent,  of 
a  character  as  stringent  as  that  attached  to  the  mines,  yet  until  a  for- 
feiture is  proved,  the  estate  of  the  grantee  is  always  held  good. 

By  the  first  act  of  our  own  Congress,  providing  for  the  sale  of 
lands,  one-third  part  of  the  mines  of  all  gold,  silver,  lead,  and  copper, 


101 

were  reserved  to  the  United  States,  for  the  future  disposal   of  the 
government. 

This  reservation  was  not  retained  in  subsequent  acts,  and  an  Ameri- 
can patent  is  now  understood  to  carry  a  title  in  fee  simple  to  the  land 
and  all  the  metals  which  lie  beneath  the  surface. 

Spain  and  Mexico,  on  the  contrary,  recognized  the  two  interests  as 
separate  and  distinct  in  the  premises,  and  granted  them  as  seperate 
estates. 

Both  interests  partook  of  the  realty,  were  inseparable  from,  and 
constituted  a  part  of  the  land  itself. 

The  right  of  the  miner  was  "  property,"  as  much  as  that  of  the 
colonist,  and  was  as  much  recognised  and  protected  by  the  treaty  of 
Guadalupe  Hidalgo. 

The  mine  owner  was  as  much  a  person  claiming  lands  by  virtue  of 
a  right  or  title  derived  from  the  Spanish  or  Mexican  government,  as 
he  who  claimed  under  a  colonization  grant. 

The  latter  held  the  premises  subject  to  the  title  of  the  owner,  and 
the  former  must  enjoy  his  privilege  without  infringing  the  light  of  the 
latter. 

Such  an  estate  existing  at  the  time  of  the  cession,  I  cannot  doubt 
is  protected  as  property  by  the  treaty ;  and  I  think  it  equally  clear, 
that  such  a  claim  is  within  the  description  of  cases  upon  which  this 
Commission  has  authority,  and  is  required  to  adjudicate. 

As  to  the  duty  of  the  claimant  in  the  performance  of  the  con- 
ditions contemplated  by.  the  Mexican  law,  or  the  consequences  of  a 
failure  to  continue  to  perform  them,  it  will  be  for  another  tribunal  to 
decide,  if  the  occasion  should  ever  be  presented. 

But  it  has  been  strongly  pressed  upon  us  by  counsel,  that  the  Su- 
preme Court  of  the  United  States  have  decided,  in  Fremont's  case, 
that  such  a  claim  is  not  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Commission. 

Fremont's  claim  was  based  on  a  grant  under  the  colonization  laws. 

Subsequently  to  the  grant,  mines  of  gold  and  silver  were  discovered 
on  the  premises,  and  the  Attorney  General  contended  that  this  ren- 
dered the  grant  void,  and  the  claim  should  therefore  be  rejected. 

Aftef  declaring  that,  under  the  law  of  Spain,  the  discovery  of  a 
mine  of  gold  or  silver  did  not  destroy  the  title  of  an  individual  to  the 
land  granted,  the  Court  proceeds  as  follows : 

"  The  only  question  before  the  Court,  is  the  validity  of  the  title  ; 
and  whether  there  be  any  mines  on  this  land,  or  if  there  be  any,  what 
are  the  rights  of  the  sovereign  in  them,  are  questions  which  must  be 
determined  in  another  form  of  proceeding,  and  are  not  subjected  to 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  Commissioners  or  of  the  Court,  by  the  act  of 
1851." 

The  colonization  grant  could  not  be  defeated  on  the  ground  that 
mines  existed  on  the  land,  because  under  Mexican  law  all  such  grants 


102 

were  subject  to  a  reservation  of  all  the  mines  on  the  premises ;  and 
while  Mexican  jurisdiction  continued,  these  remained  the  property 
of  the  national  sovereignty,  unless  specially  disposed  of. 

By  the  treaty  of  cession,  the  right  of  the  Mexican  sovereignty  was 
transferred  to  the  American  nation. 

The  argument  in  the  case  referred  to  must  have  rested  on  the 
ground  that  our  own  sovereignty  was  now  the  owner  of  the  mines  on 
the  land  in  question ;  and  that  if  a  decree  of  confirmation  was 
entered,  and  a  patent  issued  to  the  claimant  in  the  usual  form,  the 
latter  would  thereby  obtain  a  larger  estate  than  was  embraced  origi- 
nally in  his  grant,  and  would  acquire  the  mining  right  which  was  not 
covered  by  his  original  concession,  and  which  was  held  by  the  United 
States  government,  under  a  subsequent  transfer. 

But  the  grant  was,  beyond  question,  within  the  jurisdiction  given 
by  the  act  of  March  3d,  1851,  and  the  Court  well  said  that  this  com- 
mission had  no  jurisdiction  to  determine  upon  the  rights  claimed  by 
the  sovereign. 

If  Congress  designed  to  confirm  to  the  Mexican  claimant  in  coloniz- 
ation only  the  interest  which  his  grant  gave  him  under  Mexiean  law, 
and  to  retain  the  sovereign  right  of  the  mines  in  the  conceded  premises, 
for  the  subsequent  disposition  of  the  nation,  it  was  for  that  body  to 
provide,  and  to  require,  the  corresponding  reservation  in  the  patent 
which  should  eventually  be  issued  to  him  ;  or  if,  when  the  patent  should 
issue  in  the  usual  form  under  the  present  law,  it  should  be  the  opinion 
of  the  proper  law  officer  of  the  Government  that  it  confirms  only  such 
right  as  was  given  him  under  the  Mexican  law,  the  property  in  the 
mines  being  then  reserved,  and  now  belonging  to  the  sovereignty  of 
our  nation,  it  pertains  to  the  judiciary  of  the  country,  in  another  form 
of  proceeding,  to  try  the  question. 

In  no  aspect  of  the  case,  under  the  act  of  Congress  of  1851, 
could  the  claimant  under  a  colonization  grant  be  defeated  in  title  by 
showing  a  claim  to  the  mines  on  the  land  in  the  sovereignty,  nor  could 
the  question  be  entertained  for  that  purpose  by  the  court  acting 
under  it. 

But  the  Supreme  Court  no  where  expressed  the  opinion  that  the 
sovereignty  of  Mexico  could  not  grant  the  mines  in  her  own  national 
domain  without  a  grant  of  the  land  itself,  or  could  not  make  such 
separate  grant  of  mines  which  were  discovered  in  lands  already  con- 
ceded in  colonization. 

Nor  have  they  intimated  that  such  grant  would  not  convey  a  "  prop- 
erty "  in  the  mines  which  would  be  protected  by  the  treaty  of  Guada- 
lupe Hidalgo ;  nor  that  a  claim  founded  on  such  grant  would  not  be 
a  proper  subject  for  adjudication  under  the  act  of  1851. 

It  is  the  opinion  of  the  Commission,  then,  that  Castillero's  right  to 
the  mine  was  established  under  the  Mexican  law  at  the  time  of  making 


103 

the  treaty  of  Guadalupe  Hidalgo ;  that  his  interest  constitututed 
u  property  "  within  the  meaning  of  that  treaty,  and  as  such,  was  pro- 
tected by  it ;  that  in  its  character  it  was  a  fixed,  definite  interest  in 
the  land,  and  therefore  within  the  class  of  cases  for  adjudication  of 
which  this  Commission  was  established  by  the  act  of  Congress,  and 
that  he  is  entitled  to  have  his  rights  secured,  under  our  laws,  by  a 
decree  of  confirmation. 

IV.  The  claim  for  land  granted  in  colonization. 

In  the  proposition  of  Castillero,  made  to  the  Board  for  Encourage- 
ment of  Mining,  he  proposed  that  that  corporation  should  represent  to 
the  Supreme  Government  the  advantage  of  there  being  granted  to 
him,  as  a  colonist,  two  square  leagues  upon  the  land  at  his  mining 
possession,  with  the  object  of  being  able  to  use  the  wood  for  his  burn- 
ings. 

In  transmitting  this  document  to  the  Supreme  Government,  the 
Board  declined  to  express  any  opinion  on  this  subject.  With  grants 
in  colonization  they  had  nothing  to  do.  This  belonged  exclusively  to 
another  branch  of  the  Goverment. 

The  action  of  the  Government  on  this  part  of  the  application  of 
Castillero  is  found  in  the  marginal  decree  entered  on  the  document, 
and  is  as  follows : 

"  And  with  respect  to  the  land,  let  the  proper  order  issue  to  the 
Minister  of  Relations  for  the  proceedings,  so  far  as  his  department  is 
concerned,  with  the  understanding  that  the  Supreme  Government  is 
favorable  to  the  petition. " 

This  decree  was  communicated  to  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Rela- 
tions, in  order  that  he  might  be  pleased  to  issue  the  orders  corres- 
ponding; and  by  him,  the  Governor  of  the  Department  of  Califor- 
nia was  notified  thereof  by  communication,  dated  May  23,  1846. 

The  petitioner  claims  that  these  documents  establish  a  grant  made 
by  the  President  of  the  Republic  to  him. 

The  decree  of  the  President  is  not,  in  my  opinion,  a  grant,  nor  was 
it  intended  to  be  such. 

The  Colonization  Law  of  1824,  and  the  Regulations  of  1828,  made 
under  it~  had  committed  the  granting  of  the  national  lands  to  the  Gov- 
ernors of  the  Departments,  subject  to  the  approval  of  the  local  assem- 
blies, and  in  certain  cases  the  Supreme  Executive  of  the  Republic. 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  and  Government  was  the  proper 
organ  of  the  Executive  to  communicate  with  the  Governors  of  the 
Departments,  and  hence  the  decree,  not  that  the  grant  be  made,  but 
that  the  Minister  communicate  the  application  to  the  ^  officers  having 
charge  of  the  subject  of  grants  where  the  land  was  situated,  with  an 
expression  of  the  favorable  disposition  of  the  Executive  thereto. 

The  Minister  of  Relations  so  understood  the  decree,  and  acted  in 
accordance,  by  his  communication  to  the  Governor  on  the  subject. 


104 

If  a  grant  had  been  intended  by  the  President,  a  document  of  title 
would  have  been  issued  and  delivered  to  the  party,  instead  of  direct- 
ing a  simple  communication  to  the  Governor  of  California. 

The  inference  from  the  whole  proceedings  is  inresistible  that  the 
President  did  not  assume  to  make  a  grant ;  but  that  he  referred  the 
matter,  with  an  expression  of  his  favorable  appreciation  of  the  object 
of  Castillero,  to  the  Governor,  to  proceed  according  to  the  Coloniza- 
tion laws  on  the  subject. 

The  land  asked  for  was,  in  part  at  least,  according  to  Castillero's 
representation,  granted  in  colonization  to  Berreyesa. 

It  could  not,  therefore,  be  granted  to  Castillero,  unless  by  denounce- 
ment, which  could  be  decreed  with  propriety  only  by  the  local  author- 
ities. 

The  Regulations  also  required  certain  investigations  to  be  had  on  an 
application  for  a  grant,  by  those  authorities. 

It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  the  President  contemplated  the  appli- 
cation of  Castillero  to  the  Governor  of  the  Department  for  the  land 
in  the  usual  form,  and  that  the  ordinary  investigation  agreeably  to  the 
Colonization  Laws  would  be  had  by  that  officer,  to  ascertain  whether 
the  grant  could  with  propriety  be  made. 

It  does  not  appear  that  any  further  proceedings  were  had,  or  that 
any  grant  was  ever  issued. 

It  is  of  no  consequence,  then,  to  determine  whether  the  acting 
President,  Paredes,  had  extraordinary  powers,  by  which  he  was  auth- 
orized to  make  grants  without  reference  to  the  Colonization  Laws,  or 
whether,  under  the  law  of  1824,  and  the  regulations  of  1828,  he  could 
make  grants  by  his  own  direct  act ;  as  we  are  of  opinion,  in  the  first 
place,  that  he  has  not  assumed  to  make  a  grant,  and  in  the  second 
place,  that  the  documents  clearly  show  that  he  regarded  the  Governor 
of  California  as  the  proper  authority  to  investigate  the  case,  and  to 
issue  a  grant,  if  the  claimant  entitled  himself  to  it  agreebly  to  the 
Colonization  Laws. 

Under  these  views  of  the  case,  the  claim  for  the  land  must  be  re- 
jected. 

Filed  in  office,  January  8th,  1856. 

GEO.  FISHER,  Sec'y. 


105 

OPINION  BY  COMMISSIONER  R.  AUG.  THOMPSON. 

Andres  Castillero,    ) 

vs.  >    For  the  New  Almaden  Mine. 

The  United  States.   ) 

The  opinion  of  the  majority  of  the  Commission,  confirming  to  the 
claimant  in  this  case  the  mine  of  quicksilver  known  as  the  New 
Almaden  Mine,  is  based  upon  three  leading  propositions,  to  wit : 

1.  That  the  proceedings  had  before  the  Alcalde  of  San  Jose,  and 
the  acts  performed  by  that  officer  in  the  premises,  as  set  out  in  the 
official  record  filed  in  the  case,  were  sufficient  to  invest  the  claimant 
with  all  the  rights  in  the  mine  which  the  citizen  would  acquire  under 
the  laws  of  Mexico  in  force  at  the  time. 

2.  That  if  those  preceedings  were  not  sufficient  for  the  purpose, 
the  subsequent  acts  of  the  Central  Board  for  the  encouragement  of 
mining,  and  the  contract  authorised  between  that  body  and  the  claim- 
ant, with  the  approbation  of  the  President  of  the  Republic,  conferred 
those  rights  irrespective  of  the  local  proceedings  before  .the  Alcalde. 

3.  That  the  rights  so  acquired,  gave  to  the  claimant  such  an 
interest  in  the  mine  and  its  appurtenances,  as  to  constitute  them  lands 
within  the  meaning  of  the  Act  of  Congress  of  the  3d  of  March,  1851, 
creating  this  Commission,  and  to  bring  the  case  within  its  jurisdiction. 

From  each  and  all  of  these  propositions  I  dissent ;  and  will  proceed, 
as  briefly  as  the  nature  of  the  subject  will  permit,  to  give  my  reasons 
therefor — considering  them  in  the  order  in  which  they  are  stated 
above,  being  the  same  as  that  in  which  they  are  discussed  in  the 
opinion  of  the  majority. 

First,  as  to  the  character  and  effect  of  the  proceedings  before  the 
Alcalde. 

These  proceedings  are  fully  set  out  in  the  opinion  of  a  majority  of 
the  Board,  and  I  shall  therefore  only  refer  to  them  so  far  as  may  be 
necessary  to  elucidate  my  views  of  the  question  under  consideration. 
The  law  upon  which  those  proceedings  were  based,  is  also  correctly 
stated  in  the  opinion,  and  on  this  point  I  only  differ  with  my  associ- 
ates in  the  conclusions  which  they  have  drawn  from  the  facts  as  stated, 
and  the  law  as  applied  by  them. 

It  is  fully  admitted  that  the  provisions  of  the  Spanish  "  Ordinanzas 
de  Mineria,"  promulgated  by  the  King  in  1783,  prescribing  the  mode 
in  which  individuals  and  companies  could  acquire  the  right  to  occupy 
and  work  newly  discovered  mines,  were  in  full  force  in  Mexico  at  the 
time  these  proceedings  were  had;  and^art.  4,  title  6,  of  the  Ordi- 
nanzas, is  cited  for  the  purpose  of  showing  what  was  necessary  to  be 
done  in  order  to  acquire  such  right. 

As  that  article,  and  the  following  one,  prescribe  minutely  and  par- 


;    w,  <h 


106 

ticularly  the  proceedings  necessary  to  be  had,  both  on  the  part  of  the 
discoverer  and  the  proper  tribunal,  to  perfect  his  right  to  work  the 
mine,  and  as  it  may  be  necessary  in  the  course  of  this  opinion  to  com- 
pare these  provisions  with  the  proceedings  under  which  the  present 
right  is  claimed,  I  shall  quote  them  in  full  as  translated  in  Rockwell, 
pp.  50,  51  : 

"  The  persons  referred  to  in  the  preceeding  sections  must  present  a 
written  statement  to  the  deputation  of  mines  in  that  district,  or  in 
case  there  should  not  be  one  in  that  district,  to  the  nearest  thereunto, 
specifying  in  it  his  name  and  that  of  his  associates,  (if  he  has  any,) 
the  place  of  his  birth,  his  place  of  habitation,  profession,  and  employ- 
ment, together  with  the  most  particular  and  distinguishing  features  of 
the  tract,  mountain,  or  vein  of  which  he  claims  the  discovery  ;  all  of 
which  circumstances,  as  well  as  the  hour  in  which  the  discoverer  shall 
present  himself,  must  be  noted  down  in  a  register  kept  by  the  depu- 
tation and  clerk  (if  they  have  one,)  and  after  this  the  said  written 
statement  shall,  for  his  due  security,  be  restored  to  the  discoverer, 
and  notices  of  its  objects  and  contents  shall  be  affixed  to  the  doors  of 
the  church,  the  government  houses,  and  other  public  buildings  of  the 
town,  for  the  sake  of  general  notoriety.  And  I  ordain  that  within  the 
term  of  ninety  days,  the  discoverer  shall  cause  to  be  made  in  the 
vein  or  veins  so  registered,  a  pit  of  a  yard  and  a  half  in  diameter  or 
breadth,  and  ten  yards  in  depth,  and  that  immediately  on  the  exist- 
ence of  the  vein  being  ascertained,  one  of  the  deputies  in  person 
shall  visit  it,  accompanied  by  the  clerk,  (if  there  be  one,)  or  if  there  be 
no  clerk,  by  two  assisting  witnesses,  and  by  the  mining  professer  of 
that  territory,  in  order  to  inspect  the  course  and  direction  of  the 
vein,  its  size,  its  inclination  on  the  horizon,  called  its  falling  or  de- 
clivity, its  hardness  or  softness,  the  greater  or  less  firmness  of  its  bed, 
and  the  principal  marks  and  species  of  the  mineral ;  taking  an  exact 
account  of  all  this  in  order  to  add  the  same  to  the  entry  in  the 
register,  together  with  the  act  of  prossession,  which  must  be  immedi- 
ately given  to  the  discoverer  in  my  royal  name,  measuring  him  his 
portion,  (pertenencia,)  and  making  him  enclose  it  by  poles  at  the 
limits,  as  hereafter  declared,  after  which  an  accurate  copy  of  the 
proceedings  shall  be  delivered  to  him  for  the  security  of  his  title,  (or 
more  correctly  "  as  the  corresponding  title.") 

"  Art.  5.  If  during  the  above  named  ninety  days,  any  one  should 
appear  asserting  a  right  to  the  said  discovery,  a  brief  judicial  hear- 
ing shall  be  granted,  and  judgment  given  in  favor  of  him  who  best 
proves  his  claim :  however,  if  this  should  happen  after  the  stated 
time,  he  (the  new  claimant,)  shall  not  be  heard." 

Some  doubt  is  expressed  in  the  opinion  of  the  Board,  whether  the 
mining  deputations  established  by  the  ordinances,  were  abolished  by 
the  decree  of  the  Mexican  Government  of  the  20th  of  May,  1826, 


107 

for  the  suppression  of  the  Tribunal  General  of  the  Mines.  As  the 
decree  is  entirely  silent  on  the  subject,  and  makes  no  reference  what- 
ever to  the  deputations,  I  can  see  no  grounds  from  which  their  sup- 
pression could  be  inferred.  From  the  language  of  the  preamble  to 
the  decree  of  the  2d  of  December,  1842,  and  the  testimony  of  the 
witnesses,  Domingo  Danglada  and  Francisco  de  Leon,  it  is  probable, 
that  during  the  interval  between  the  issuing  of  the  decree  of  May, 
1826,  and  that  of  December,  1842,  these  deputations,  together  with 
other  regulations  of  the  ordinances,  may  have  fallen  into  disuse,  and 
it  is  also  possible,  that  during  that  period  the  ordinary  tribunals  may 
have  acted  in  their  stead,  in  the  registration  and  denouncement  of 
mines,  as  testified  to  by  the  witnesses  above  named.  But  whatever 
may  be  the  fact  in  this  respect,  it  is  certain  that  the  decree  of  the 
2d  of  December,  1842,  restored  those  tribunals,  or  created  others  of 
a  similar  character,  and  invested  them  with  all  the  attributes  and 
powers  conferred  by  the  ordinance  upon  the  former  ones.  (See  title 
IV.  of  the  Decree,  Rockwell,  p.  607.) 

There  can  be  no  doubt,  therefore,  that  at  the  time  these  proceed- 
ings were  had,  the  mining  deputations  existed  in  their  full  vigor  in 
Mexico,  and  that  their  proceedings  in  the  registration  and  denounce- 
ment of  newly  discovered  mines  were  regulated  by  the  provisions  of 
the  ordinance  quoted  above. 

But  it  is  said,  in  the  opinion  of  the  majority,  u  that  in  the  whole 
Department  of  California,  there  was  no  deputation,  or  mining  tribunal 
of  any  kind.  Application,  therefore,  could  not  be  made  to  the  officers 
named  by  law,"  and  it  may  be  asked,  "  what  then  could  be  done  ? 
Could  the  discoverer  of  a  new  mine  here  take  no  measures  to  secure 
his  rights  therein  ?  Must  the  mines  continue  unworked,  notwithstand- 
ing the  anxiety  of  the  government  to  induce  the  citizen,  by  a  secure 
interest  therein,  to  discover  and  to  work  them  ?  And  had  the  ordinary 
tribunals  no  authority  in  default  of  the  tribunal  specially  charged 
with  the  subject,  to  act  in  the  matter  ?"  To  the  questions  thus  pre- 
sented, the  law  furnishes  a  prompt  and  satisfactory  answer :  I  give  it 
in  the  language  of  the  opinion  which  quotes  correctly  the  translation 
in  Rockwell — it  is  as  follows :  "In  order  to  acquire  the  right  to  a  mine 
newly  discovered,  the  discoverer  must  present  a  written  application  to 
the  deputation  of  mines  in  that  district ;  or,  if  there  be  none  in  the 
district,  to  the  nearest  thereunto,  setting  out,  etc." 

This  clause  of  the  law,  it  will  at  once  be  perceived,  destroys  the 
premises  upon  which  the  reasoning  of  the  majority  in  favor  of  the 
Alcalde's  authority  to  act  in  the  matter,  growing  out  of  the  supposed 
necessity  of  the  case,  is  based  ;  and,  as  a  necessary  consequence,  the 
whole  superstructure  of  argument  built  upon  them  falls  to  the  ground. 
If  there  was  no  mining  tribunal  in  California,  it  was  clearly  the  duty 
of  Castillero,  under  the  law,  to  have  registered  his  claim  before  the 


•     108 

one  nearest  to  it,  and  the  fact  that  several  of  the  certificates  to  the 
record  of  registry,  and  other  evidence  of  title  filed  by  the  claimant, 
are  dated  at  Tepic,  situated  in  a  rich  mining  district,  and  where  such 
a  tribunal  probably  existed,  would  seem  to  indicate  that  an  effort  was 
made  for  that  purpose,  which  was  probably  arrested  by  the  war,  and 
the  early  occupation  of  California  by  the  Americans.  The  supposed 
necessity  of  the  case,  therefore,  upon  which  the  authority  of  the 
Alcalde  to  act  in  the  matter  is  predicated,  would  not  arise,  unless  it 
was  shown  that  no  such  substitute  tribunal  was  in  existence.  It  would 
seem,  therefore,  scarcely  necessary  to  follow  the  majority  through  the 
supposed  analogy  existing  between  this  proceeding  and  the  practice 
under  the  laws  of  Spain  prior  to  the  adoption  of  the  ordinances  of 
1783,  as  laid  down  in  Gamboa's  Commentaries.  Even  if  the  views 
contained  in  the  opinion  on  this  subject  were  correct,  the  practice, 
under  the  ordinances  referred  to,  could  only  amount  to  a  casus  omissus, 
where  no  special  tribunal  being  charged  with  the  subject,  the  ordinary 
tribunals,  according  to  the  principle  of  the  Spanish  law,  as  laid  down 
by  Pena  y  Peiia,  took  jurisdiction  of  the  matter.  But  here  the  law 
itself  expressly  provides  a  substitute  tribunal  in  default  of  that  to 
which  the  subject  was  specially  committed,  and  no  other  but  such 
substitute  could  exercise  jurisdiction  over  it,  hence,  even  admitting 
the  practice  to  have  been  as  claimed  by  the  majority,  all  analogy 
between  the  cases  ceases,  and  the  argument  founded  upon  it  cannot 
be  sustained.  But  a  careful  examination  of  Gamboa's  Commentaries, 
as  translated  in  Rockwell,  satisfied  me  that  the  views  of  the  majority 
on  this  point  arise  from  a  misconception  of  certain  passages  in  that 
work,  and  are  by  no  means  sustained  by  the  authority  cited. 

That  the  ordinary  tribunals  of  the  country  had  no  power  to  act  in 
the  premises,  can  hardly  admit  of  a  doubt,  for  the  obvious  reason  that 
the  law  gave  them  no  such  authority.  On  the  contrary,  it  prohibited 
the  exercise  of  the  power  by  any  save  those  on  whom  it  was  expressly 
conferred.  This  was  the  rule  under  both  the  new  and  the  old 
ordinances.  The  officers  appointed  for  that  purpose  were  not  desig- 
nated under  both  by  the  same  title,  but  their  functions  were  the  same, 
and  none  but  those  on  whom  the  power  was  specially  conferred  could 
excise  them. 

The  ordinances  provided  for  Mining  Justices  and  Notaries,  before 
whom  registry  and  denouncement  was  to  be  made.  The  former 
were  sometimes  called  Mining  Alcaldes  ;  and  both  were  sometimes 
denominated  Mining  or  Registering  Notaries.  Chap.  V,  ordinance 
17,  Rock.  p.  170,  requires  the  Mining  Justice  to  send,  within  sixty 
days  after  denouncement,  an  authentic  copy  of  the  registry  to  the 
administrator  general,  if  there  should  be  one  in  the  district,  if  not, 
then  to  the  administrator  of  the  department,  so  that  there  might  be 
general  records  of  mines  as  well  as  lands,  according  to  the  ordinary 


.   109 

rules  of  the  municipal  law,  and  also  that  through  these  administrators 
there  might  be  transmitted  to  the  Viceroy  a  complete  record  of  these 
matters  throughout  the  kingdom.  But  there  were  in  New  Spain,  (the 
Indies,)  no  general  or  special  administrators  to  collect  these  records. 
Rock.  p.  275,  No.  7.  For  this  reason  the  Viceroy  Fuerti  issued  his 
order  commanding  the  royal  officers  and  justices  to  send  an  account 
of  the  mines  within  their  respective  districts.  This,  however,  seems 
never  to  have  been  done. 

There  is  certainly  nothing'  to  be  found  in  this  Commentary  which 
sanctions  the  idea  that  the  ordinary  tribunals  could  exercise  jurisdic- 
tion in  matters  of  denouncement,  in  the  absence  of  Mining  Justices 
and  Notaries,  or  other  officers  specially  charged  with  the  matter ;  on  the 
contrary,  Gamboa  himself  declares  that  there  were  Governors,  Mayors, 
and  Chief  Alcaldes  in  the  mining  districts,  and  likewise  mining  and 
registering  Notaries.  But  there  were  no  general  or  particular  ad- 
ministrators, they  being  officers  before  whom  the  discoverer  could  not 
register  or  denounce  the  mines.  In  his  Commentary  on  the  same 
chapter,  (Rock.  p.  177,)  he  says  that  although,  for  the  purpose  of 
securing  the  revenue,  the  discoverer  shall  make  oath,  etc.,  before 
certain  other  officers,  yet  that  registry  and  denouncement  belong 
alone  to  the  officers  of  the  Justices  of  the  Departments,  many  of 
whom  have  the  title  of  Chief  Mining  Alcaldes :  again  he  states, 
"  But  judicial  matters,  such  as  registry,  denouncement,  the  giving 
possession,  &c.  are  the  province  of  the  Justice."  It  is  therefore, 
evident,  in  my  opinion,  that  under  the  former  ordinances,  no  officer 
has  original  jurisdiction  in  these  matters,  except  the  mining  justices, 
or  alcaldes  and  notaries. 

The  Commentary  upon  chapter  xxv,  Rock.  pp.  354,  356  to  362,  is 
Still  more  explicit  as  to  the  jurisdiction  being  exclusive,  although  it 
seems  to  be  relied  on  to  sustain  the  opposite  view. 

The  ordinance  contained  in  this  chapter,  undertakes  to  provide  for 
the  correction  of  evils  growing  out  of  costly  and  protracted  litigation. 
It  has  reference  alone  to  litigious  proceedings,  in  which  it  is  said  that 
parties  become  so  exhausted  as  to  be  unable  to  prosecute  the  discovery 
and  working  of  mines.  Gamboa  shows  that  this  ordinance  was  not 
observed  in  the  Indies,  that  the  organization  of  the  general  and  par- 
ticular administrations  would  be  attended  with  additional  expense,  and 
would  not  tend  to  correct  the  evil,  which  lay  in  the  appointment  of 
other  incompetent  officers.  Denouncement,  insufficient  working, 
boundaries,  &c,  he  says,  all  belong  to  the  Chief  Alcaldes  or  Mayors, 
and  by  appeal  to  the  royal  audiences.  Again,  the  Viceroy  is  for- 
bidden to  disturb  the  harmony  and  subordination  which  ought  to  exist 
in  the  functions  of  the  different  officers  ef  the  State.  The  Viceroy 
Toledo,  sensible  of  these  truths,  framed  for  Peru  three  special  ordi- 
nances, directing  that  the  registries  should  be  made  befere  the  Mining 


110 

Alcalde.  In  matters  of  ordinary  litigation,  the  Mining  Judge  or 
ordinary  justice  could  take  jurisdiction. 

From  the  above  review  of  the  Commentaries  of  Gamboa  on  this 
subject,  I  am  clearly  of  the  opinion  that  they  do  not  sustain  the  views 
of  the  majority  of  the  Board  as  to  the  practice  under  the  ancient 
ordinances  ;  on  the  contrary,  they  shew  conclusively,  to  my  mind, 
that  the  subject  of  the  registration  and  denouncement  of  mines  was 
committed  to  officers  specially  appointed  for  that  purpose  ;  and  I  have 
been  unable  to  discern  any  thing  in  them,  tending  to  show  that  the 
ordinary  tribunals  ever  took  cognizance  of  these  matters,  either  in 
default  of  the  special  authorities,  or  by  concurrent  jurisdiction  with 
them.  The  discoverer  of  a  mine  could  acquire  no  rights  in  it,  with- 
out an  act  of  registry  before  the  proper  tribunal.  The  process  of 
registry  is  said  to  be  very  simple  :  but  simple  as  it  is,  it  is  neverthe- 
less indispensable,  in  order  to  give  the  discoverer  any  right  whatever 
in  the  mine,  "  The  registry  is  the  basis  of  title  in  the  mine,  and  the 
attributive  cause  of  the  subject's  right  of  property  in  it."  Rock.  p. 
173. 

Having  demonstrated,  as  I  think  I  have  in  the  preceeding  pages, 
that  the  pretended  registry  in  this  case  was  made  before  an  officer  or 
tribunal  having  no  jurisdiction  of  the  subject,  and  in  direct  opposition 
to  express  provisions  of  the  law  under  which  it  was  had,  it  follows 
that  the  act  itself  was  a  mere  nullity,  and  conferred  no  right  whatever 
on  the  so  called  discoverer. 

The  ordinance  of  1783,  under  which  these  proceedings  were  had, 
requires  in  art.  12,  of  title  19,  the  utmost  strictness  in  carrying  out 
all  its  provisions.  It  requires  the  Royal  Tribunal  General  of  mines 
to  observe  and  carry  them  into  eifect,  and  to  cause  all  the  subalterns 
of  their  body  to  do  the  same  without  any  evasions,  which  might  alter 
or  corrupt  their  true  spirit  and  intent.  The  Territorial  Deputation  of 
Miners  are  also  required  to  cause  them  to  be  observed  with  the 
utmost  particularity  and  correctness,  and  not  to  act,  or  permit  others 
to  act,  in  contravention  of  their  real  interest  and  meaning  in  any 
manner  whatever.  A  comparison  of  the  proceedings  in  this  case 
before  the  Alcalde,  as  disclosed  in  the  testimony,  under  the  strict  rule 
above  cited,  with  the  requirements  of  the  law  as  quoted  in  the  .pre- 
ceeding part  of  this  opinion,  will  show  such  a  departure  both  from  its 
letter  and  spirit,  as  would,  in  my  view,  be  sufficient  of  itself  to  vacate 
and  render  void  the  whole  act.  Indeed  the  whole  proceeding  seems 
to  have  been  hurried  through  in  the  short  space  of  twenty-s  3ven 
days ;  whereas  the  law  fixes  the  period  of  ninety  days  within  which 
contestant  claimants  might  assert  their  rights,  and  prior  to  the  expi- 
ration of  which,  judicial  possession  could  not  be  given,  or  the  perten- 
encias  assigned. 

I  will  not,  however,  stop  to  point  out  the  discrepancies  between  the 


Ill 

terms  of  the  law  and  the  acts  of  the  Alcalde,  as  they  will  be  apparent 
from  a  very  cursory  examination  of  the  facts  of  the  case  ;  but  will 
proceed  at  once  to  the  second  proposition  asserted  in  the  opinion  of  the 
majority,  to  wit :  111. 

That  if  the  proceedings  before  the  Alcalde  were  not  sufficient  to 
vest  in  the  claimant  the  right  to  the  mines,  the  subsequent  acts  of  the 
Central  Board  for  the  encouragement  of  mining,  aud  the  contract 
authorized  between  that  body  and  the  claimant,  with  the  approbation 
of  the  President  of  the  Republic,  had  that  effect  irrespective  of  these 
proceedings. 

The  argument  of  the  majority  on  this  point,  commences  with  a 
review  of  the  Spanish  laws  in  relation  to  mines  of  quicksilver,  and 
the  supply  of  that  article  to  the  miners  generally,  in  which  I  concur. 
There  can  be  no  doubt  that  both  the  working  of  the  mines  and  the 
supply  of  quicksilver  were  close  royal  monopolies  under  the  Spanish 
crown,  until  the  decree *of  the  Cortes  of  18  abolished  this  exclusive 
privilege  of  the  crown,  and  placed  mines  of  quicksilver  On  the  same 
footing  as  those  of  other  metals,  opening  them  to  public  competition 
and  individual  enterprise,  and  subjecting  them  to  the  same  process  of 
registry  and  denouncement  required  by  the  ordinances,  in  order  to 
acquire  the  right  of  working  them.  It  is  true  that  this  decree  of  the 
Cortes,  was,  in  common  with  the  other  acts  of  that  body,  annulled  on 
the  restoration  of  King  Ferdinand  ;  but  it  is  also  true,  that  this,  like 
the  others,  was  revived  by  the  revolution  of  1820,  and  was  in  force 
at  the  time  the  Independence  of  Mexico  was  achieved.  It  is  univer- 
sally admitted,  and  has  been  so  decided  repeatedly  by  this  Commission, 
that  the  decress  of  the  Spanish  Cortes,  except  so  far  as  they  were  in- 
compatible with  the  new  order  of  things,  were  in  full  force  in  Mexico. 
And  I  can  see  no  reason  why  this  particular  one  should  be  considered 
as  an  exception  to  that  general  rule.  The  subsequent  action  of  the 
Mexican  Government  on  the  subject,  is  in  entire  conformity  with  this 
view,  particularly  the  decree  of  Congress  of  1824,  giving  to  Don 
Juan  Binnon  the  exclusive  right  to  work  quicksilver  mines  in  the 
territory  of  the  Republic  for  the  period  of  five  years,  in  which  decree 
the  rights  of  individuals  in  such  mines  previously  acquired  is  fully 
recognized  and  reserved.  It  is  therefore  clear  to  my  mind,  that  the 
right  to  acquire  and  work  quicksilver  mines  in  Mexico,  after  the 
establishment  of  her  Independence,  was  placed  upon  the  same  footing 
with  the  other  mines  of  the  precious  metals,  and  were  subject  to  the 
same  rules  and  regulations  as  to  registry  and  denouncement  as  were 
prescribed  by  the  ordinances  in  other  cases. 

But  it  is  contended  that  the  decree  of  General  Bravo,  acting  Presi- 
dent of  the  Republic,  of  the  2d  of  December,  1842,  established  the 
Board  for  the  encouragement  and  management  of  the  mining  corpora- 
tion, and  that  of  General  Santa  Anna,  of  the  30th  of  September, 


112 

1843,  more  particularly  defining  the  duties  of  that  body,  conferred 
upon  it  the  power,  with  the  approval  of  the  Supreme  Government,  to 
invest  individuals  or  companies  with  the  right  of  property  in  mines, 
without  regard  to  the  requirements  of  the  ordinances  in  relation  to 
registry  and  denouncement. 

This  idea  appears  to  me  to  be  founded  on  an  entire  misconception 
of  the  objects  and  purposes  for  which  that  Board  was  created.  I  have 
examined  both  the  decrees  with  the  utmost  care  and  attention,  and  I 
have  been  unable  to  discover  anything  in  them,  which,  by  the  broadest 
construction,  could  give  •  to  the  Board,  either  with  or  without  the  ap- 
proval of  the  Supreme  Government,  any  jurisdiction  in  matters  of 
registry  or  denouncement ;  or  any  power,  either  by  inference  or  oth- 
erwise, to  confer  mining  rights  or  privileges,  in  any  part  of  the  Re- 
public, on  individuals  or  companies. 

The  powers  and  duties  of  the  Board  are  distinctly  set  out  in  the 
10th  article  of  the  Decree  of  Dec.  2d,  1842,  and  there  is  nothing  in 
the  other  parts  of  it,  or  in  that  of  the  30th  of  September,  1843,  which 
extends  its  functions  beyond  the  general  purposes  therein  indicated — 
all  the  other  articles  of  both  decrees,  so  far  as  they  have  reference  to 
the  Board  of  Encouragement,  being  confined  to  the  mode  of  appointing 
its  members  and  officers,  defining  their  duties  and  responsibilities,  the 
manner  in  which  the  funds  committed  to  its  charge  shall  be  raised  and 
administered,  and  the  encouragement  of  mining  promoted  by  its  funds 
and  school. 

The  10th  article  as  translated  in  Rockwell,  p.  605,  is  as  follows  : — 
The  attributes  of  this  Board  shall  be  those  which  include  an  econom- 
ical and  faithful  management  of  the  funds  mentioned  in  the  present 
decree  in  conformity  with  the  regulations  which  it  shall  draw  up  and 
submit  to  the  Supreme  Government  for  its  approval.  In  this  regula- 
tion shall  be  decided : 

1.  The  manner  in  which  quicksilver  shall  be  obtained,  distributed, 
and  sold  to  the  workers  of  metals,  determining  the  cases  and  mode  in 
which  the  working  of  quicksilver  mines  in  the  Republic  is  to  be  en- 
couraged by  rewards,  or  in  any  other  way  promoted. 

2.  Everything  relating  to  the  redemption  of  the  debt  of  the  sub- 
scribed fund  according  to  what  may  be  decreed  in  the  item  relating 
thereto. 

3.  The  government  and  direction  of  the  Board  itself ;  and  finally 
it  shall  be  an  attribute  and  object  of  its  most  particular  solicitude  to 
promote  the  encouragement  of  the  branch  by  its  funds  and  by  its 
school. 

The  decree  of  the  30th  of  Sept.,  1843,  was  evidently  penned  with 
a  view  to  carry  out  the  last  clause  of  the  first  specification  of  the  pow- 
ers and  attributes  of  the  Board,  contained  in  article  10th  above  quoted, 
for  the  encouragement  of  the  working  of  quicksilver  mines,  and  con- 


113 

fers  no  new  powers  on  the  Board.  It  simply  provides  for  the  appoint- 
ment of  Commissioners  to  examine  and  report  upon  the  condition  of 
the  quicksilver  mines  in  the  several  departments  ;  their  capacity  fox 
being  profitably  worked  ;  the  quality  of  the  ore  ;  the  works  necessary 
to  put  them  in  operation ;  the  expense  of  their  erection  ;  and  finally 
the  cost  of  working  and  extracting  the  metal  from  the  ore. 

This  information  was  absolutely  necessary  to  the  Board,  in  order  to 
enable  it  to  act  understandingly  on  the  subject,  and  not  to  jeopard  the 
funds  committed  to  its  charge  in  useless  or  unprofitable  operations. 
The  requisite  information  being  obtained,  the  Board  was  then  author- 
ized to  furnish  to  s*uch  mines  as  were  considered  of  sufficient  import- 
ance to  justify  it,  the  aid  in  working  them  contemplated  by  the  tenth 
section  of  the  decree  of  the  2d  of  December,  1842.  For  this  purpose, 
two  modes  are  laid  down  ;  the  one  in  the  nature  of  a  loan  to  the  owner 
of  the  mine,  to  enable  him  to  put  it  in  operation,  which  is  to  be  se- 
cured by  bond  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  Board,  and  to  be  returned 
within  a  specified  time  with  six  per  cent,  interest ;  a  supervisor  is  to 
be  appointed  by  the  Board,  and  paid  by  the  owner  of  the  mine,  to  see 
that  the  funds  are  not  misapplied,  but  are  invested  exclusively  in  the 
business  in  question ;  and  such  loan  could  only  be  made  in  favor  of 
those  establishments,  which  according  to  the  examinations  provided  for 
by  the  decree,  were  worthy  to  be  put  in  operation. 

The  other  mode  may  be  considered  in  the  character  of  a  quasi  con- 
tract of  co-partnership  between  the  Board  and  proprietor  of  the  mine, 
in  which  the  former  undertakes  the  necessary  supplies  to  the  mine  for 
the  purpose  of  putting  it  in  operation,  working,  &c,  in  consideration 
of  which  they  were  to  receive,  after  refunding  the  money  advanced  for 
that  purpose,  one  half  of  the  nett  profits  of  the  mine  ;  the  Board  to 
have  the  control  and  direction  of  the  operation,  with  the  right,  on  the 
part  of  the  owner,  to  appoint  a  supervisor.  This  mode  of  promoting 
the  working  of  quicksilver  mines,  was  also  to  be  regulated  by  the  re- 
ports of  the  examiners  or  commissioners  provided  for  in  the  decree,  as 
to  the  value  of  the  mine,  and  the  sums  necessary  to  be  advanced  for 
the  purpDse  indicated.  The  Board  was  required  to  draw  up  a  regula- 
tion for  supplies,  upon  the  basis  of  the  two  foregoing  articles,  and  sub- 
mit it  to  the  Government  for  approval.  The  other  articles  of  the  de- 
cree have  reference  solely  to  the  mode  of  procuring  the  necessary 
funds  to  carry  out  its  object. 

The  argument  of  the  majority,  if  I  understand  it  correctly,  is  based 
on  the  idea  that  the  power  to  enter  into  the  contracts  above  described, 
conferred  on  the  Board  by  the  decree,  involves,  also,  the  power  to 
confer  on  the  other  party  the  capacity  to  contract.  It  is  essential  to 
the  very  nature  of  a  contract  that  there  should  be  two  or  more  parties 
capable  of  contracting,  and  this  decree  in  both  the  articles  prescribing 
the  character  and  terms  of  the  contracts,  which  the  Board  was  author- 
14 


114 

ized  to  make,  pre-supposes  the  existence  of  such  parties.  The  decree 
itself  gives  the  power  to  the  Board,  and  its  language  clearly  points  to 
another  in  whom  it  already  existed — namely,  the  owner  of  the  mine  ; 
to  adopt  any  other  construction  would  stultify  the  whole  decree.  To 
whom  is  the  money  to  be  advanced  ?  The  owner  of  the  mine.  Who 
is  to  give  bond  and  security  ?  The  owner  of  the  mine.  Who  is  to 
invest  the  money,  and  whom  is  the  supervisor  employed  to  watch,  in 
order  to  see  that  it  is  not  perverted?  The  owner  of  the  mine.  Who 
pays  the  supervisor  ?  Here  the  decree  itself  answers — the  owner  of 
the  mine.  The  same  questions  might  be  put  and  answered  in  the 
same  manner  in  reference  to  the  contract  for  working  the  mine  on 
shares,  as  it  is  equally  manifest  in  that  case  as  in  the  other,  that  the 
law  pre-supposes  the  existence  of  another  party  capable  of  contracting. 
But,  say  the  majority,  the  agreement  of  the  Board  to  enter  into  the 
contract,  with  the  approval  of  the  Government,  confers  upon  the  other 
party  the  capacity  to  contract,  and  for  this  purpose  invests  him  with 
all  the  rights  he  was  capable  of  acquiring  in  the  mine  under  the  laws 
of  Mexico.  To  this  conclusion  I  cannot  bring  my  mind  to  assent,  nor 
can  I  reconcile  it  with  any  provision  of  the  Mexican  or  Spanish  laws, 
which  I  have  been  able  to  discover,  having  the  remotest  bearing  on 
the  subject. 

The  property  of  the  mines  in  Mexico  was  vested  in  the  Supreme 
Government  as  the  legitimate  successors  to  the  Spanish  Monarchy, 
and  the  laws  in  force  when  the  separation  of  the  two  governments  took 
place,  prescribing  the  mode  by  which  the  citizen  could  acquire  a  right 
of  property  in  them,  werejcontinued  in  full  vigor  at  the  time  these  pn> 
ceedings  were  commenced.  It  was  not  the  policy  of  Mexico  to  work 
the  mines  of  quicksilver  on  her  own  account,  or  to  continue  the  monop- 
oly in  the  supply  of  that  article,  as  had  been  the  case  under  the  for- 
mer government ;  but  rather  by  premiums,  rewards  and  other  induce- 
ments held  out  to  her  citizens,  to  encourage  the  discovery  and  work- 
ing of  such  mines.  Hence  the  decree  of  Sept.  30th,  1843,  directing 
the  mode  in  which  advances  should  be  made  to  the  owner  of  the  mine. 
There  is  nothing  in  it,  or  in  that  of  Dec.  2d,  1842,  creating  the  Min- 
ing Junta,  or  Board  for  the  encouragement  of  mining,  changing  the 
mode  of  acquiring  property  in  them,  or  from  which  any  such  change 
can  be  inferred.  They  simply  authorize  the  Board  to  make  certain 
advances  to  aid  in  the  development  and  working  of  them,  upon  the  fa- 
vorable report,  after  due  examination,  by  commissioners  to  be  appoint- 
ed for  that  purpose. 

With  the  registry  or  denouncement  of  the  mine,  the  Board  has 
nothing  to  do  ;  that  was  a  subject  provided  for  by  the  laws  and  com- 
mitted to  other  tribunals,  and  until  the  provisions  of  these  laws  had 
been  complied  with  through  the  agency  of  the  proper  tribunals,  the 
functions  of  the  Board  in  making  such  advances  could  not  commence  ; 


115 

for  until  then,  there  was  no  party  who  could  enter  into  the  contract, 
or  comply  with  the  terms  upon  which  the  advances  were  to  be  made. 
An  examination  of  the  record  of  proceedings  before  the  Mining  Junta 

filed  in  the  case,  will,  I  think,  fully  sustain  this  view  of  the  subject. 

The  only  papers  contained  in  the  expediente,  which  have  any  consid- 
erable bearing  on  the  question  under  consideration,  are  the  petition  of 
Castillero  to  the  Junta,  the  communication  of  that  body  to  the  Minis- 
ter of  Justice  and  Public  Instruction,  transmitting  the  petition  to  the 
Government  and  recommending  a  compliance  with  the  propositions  of 
the  petitioners,  and  finally  the  decree  of  the  President  approving  the 
agreement  proposed  to  be  made  with  Castillero  in  order  to  commence 
the  extraction  of  the  mineral.  These  documents,  in  the  opinion  of  the 
majority,  constitute  the  transaction  a  contract,  the  effect  of  which  was 
to  establish' the  rights  of  Castillero  in  the  mine  without  a  previous  offi- 
cial registration  before  the  local  officer. 

In  their  argument  to  establish  this  position  they  admit  that :  "  The 
Junta  was  not  an  appellate  tribunal,  that  it  had  no  authority  to  review 
the  proceedings  of  any  local  officer,  and  to  affirm  or  disaffirm  his  deci- 
sion ;  nor  does  it  appear  to  have  had  authority  in  cases  of  registration 
or  denouncement  as  known  to  the  laws  at  the  time  of  its  organization." 
"  If,"  say  they,  "  the  registration  was  not  valid,  the  Junta  had  no  au- 
thority to  make  it  so  by  virtue  of  an  authority  to  review  and  affirm  the 
acts  of  the  Alcalde."  That  the  simple  acts  of  registration,  according 
to  the  forms  prescribed  by  the  ordinance, "  perfects  in  the  discoverer  all 
the  rights  in  the  mine  which  the  citizen  could  ever  acquire." 

These  admissions  are,  to  my  mind,  conclusive  of  the  question  under 
consideration,  as  they  point  out  in  distinct  terms  what  was  required 
by  the  law  to  enable  the  citizen  to  acquire  a  right  in  the  mine  ;  and, 
at  the  same  time,  deny  to  the  Junta  all  authority  or  jurisdiction  over 
the  subject ;  and  yet,  by  a  process  of  reasoning  which,  I  confess,  I  can- 
not comprehend,  and  which  is  in  direct  conflict  with  the  propositions 
above  stated,  they  decide  that  the  act  of  the  Junta,  approved  by  the 
Supreme  Government,  conferred  on  the  discoverer  all  the  rights  in 
the  mine  which  could  be  be  acquired  by  a  strict  compliance  with  all 
the  forms  of  registration,  as  prescribed  by  the  ordinance. 

The  argument  by  which  this  conclusion  is  arrived  at,  is  based  on 
the  following  propositions. 

I  quote  the  language  of  the  Opinion  : 

"  This  method  of  acquiring  the  right  to  a  mine,  might  not  be,  and 
probably  never  was,  the  only  one  by  which  the  miner's  right  might  be 
acquired.  While  the  mines  continued  a  part  of  the  Royal  preroga- 
tive, the  method  of  acquiring  them  was  subject  to  be  changed  or  mod- 
ified by  the  decree  of  the  King,  and  after  the  independence  of  Mexico, 
although  the  old  laws  remained  in  force  when  not  contrary  to  the  new 
order  of  things,  or  expressly  annulled,  the  sovereign  power  of  the  new 


116 

nation  might  at  any  time  have  changed  the  manner  of  acquiring  such 
right,  and  such  is  regarded  as  the  effect  of  the  decrees  passed  subse- 
quently to  the  independence,  and  especially  those  of  the  2d  of  Dec. 
1842,  and  the  decree  of  the  25th  of  Sept.,  1845,  establishing  and 
prescribing  the  powers  and  duties  of  the  Board  for  the  encourage- 
ment of  mines. " 

In  relation  to  the  powers  of  the  King  in  the  exercise  of  his  Royal 
prerogative  to  confer  mining  rights,  or  to  prescribe  the  mode  of  acqui- 
ring them,  I  do  not  know  that  there  is  any  substantial  difference  of 
opinion  between  myself  and  the  majority ;  but  I  do  not  admit  that 
while  the  law  continued  unchanged,  any  other  than  that  prescribed  by 
it,  could  be  legally  employed  for  that  purpose,  even  by  the  sove- 
reign. 

It  is  true  that  the  Government  of  Spain  was  an  absolute  monarchy  ; 
but  it  was  at  the  same  time  a  government  of  laws,  and  the  absolutism 
of  the  King  consisted  in  the  concentration  in  his  person  of  all  the 
powers  of  government,  both  legislative  and  executive.  The  King 
could,  therefore,  change  the  law  at  his  pleasure ;  but  while  the  law 
contiued  in  force,  he  was  as  much  bound  by  its  provisions  as  the  sub- 
ject, and  any  act  done  by  him  in  contravention  of  the  existing  law 
would  not  be  regarded  by  the  Judiciary  as  a  legitimate  expression  of 
the  King's  will.  The  same  construction  would  be  put  upon  any  royal 
cedula — order  or  rescript, — which  was  issued  in  contravention  of  any 
existing  law,  without  expressly  referring  to,  and  abrogating  such  laws. 
Pro  hcec  vide,  Ordinamiento  Real,  lib.  3,  tit.  12,  law  1 ;  JVavisima  11, 
law  2,  tit.  4,  lib.  8. 

The  principles  above  stated  pervade  the  whole  system  of  Spanish 
jurisprudence ;  it  would,  therefore,  be  useless  to  multiply  authorities 
in  the  point. 

In  consequence  of  the  monopoly  of  the  Crown  in  the  production 
and  supply  of  quicksilver,  the  mines  of  that  metal  were  reserved  from 
the  ordinary  process  of  registry  and  denouncement  by  which  the  right 
to  most  other  mines  was  acquired.  The  King  might,  in  the  exercise 
of  his  royal  prerogative,  remove  the  exemption  in  favor  of  any  partic- 
ular individuel  or  mine ;  but  I  apprehend  that  in  such  a  case,  the 
party  favored  would  have  to  resort  to  the  regular  process  of  law  to 
perfect  his  right.  I  do  not  perceive,  however,  that  this  proposition, 
whether  true  or  false,  has  any  bearing  on  the  question  at  issue,  as  it 
is  not  contended  that  the  Mexican  Government  could  exercise  any 
such  prerogative. 

The  second  branch  of  the  proposition,  that  the  sovereign  power  of 
Mexico  might  at  any  time  change  the  manner  of  acquiring  mining 
rights,  I  shall  not  pretend  to  controvert ;  but  that  the  decrees  cited 
had  such  effect,  or  can  by  any  rule  of  construction  lead  to  such  an  in- 
ference, is,  I  think,  abundantly  disproved  by  the  analysis  of  these  de- 


117 

crees,  contained  in  the  former  part  of  this  opinion.  A  single  addi- 
tional view  will,  I  think,  place  the  question  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt. 
If  any  change  was  effected  by  these  decrees  in  the  mode  of  acquiring 
mining  rights,  it  must  have  been  by  that  of  the  2d  of  December,  1842, 
which  created  the  Board  and  defined  its  powers  ;  that  of  the  30th  of 
September,  1843,  only  prescribed  the  mode  in  which  certain  functions 
conferred  by  the  former,  should  be  performed.  If,  therefore,  any 
change  was  contemplated  in  the  decree  by  which  the  mode  of  acquir- 
ing mining  rights  was  so  changed  as  to  give  the  Board  the  power,  un- 
der any  circumstances,  to  confer  such  rights,  it  is  a  little  remarkable 
that  under  another  title  of  the  same  (Title  IV.)  decree,  the  ancient 
ordinances  of  1783,  should  be  re-affirmed  and  reenacted,  and  a  special 
tribunal  instituted,  with  all  the  powers  and  functions  of  the  former 
mining  deputations,  to  whose  charge  all  judicial  proceedings  in  the  af- 
fairs of  mining  were  committed.  We  have  already  shown  that  these 
powers  embraced  the  whole  subject  of  registry  and  denouncement,  and 
subjected  the  proceedings  to  all  the  laws  and  rules  prescribed  by  the 
ordinances  in  relation  to  the  same.  How  then  can  the  decree  be  said 
to  change  the  manner  of  acquiring  mining  rights,  when  one  of  its 
avowed  and  express  objects  is,  to  re-affirm  and  re-establish  on  a  firm 
basis,  the  ancient  method,  which  is  declared  in  the  preamble  to  have 
been  always  in  force  ?  Or  can  we  presume  that  the  Government,  in 
prescribing  a  particular  mode  of  doing  a  thing,  and  constituting  a 
tribunal  for  the  special  purpose  of  doing  it,  intended  by  the  same 
decree  to  give  by  implication  the  same  powers  to  another  body,  whose 
attributes  and  functions  were  of  a  character  totally  different  ?  This 
question  is  answered  in  the  opinion  of  the  majority  where  they  inform 
us  that  the  Board  possessed  no  jurisdiction  over  the  subject,  and  yet 
they  claim  for  their  acts,  when  approved  by  the  Government,  the  same 
effect  as  if  they  were  in  full  enjoyment  of  the  power  to  confer  mining 
rights.  The  argument  is  to  my  view  suicidal ;  and  when  tested  by 
the  laws  referred  to  in  support  of  it,  may  be  stated  thus — The  Board 
of  Encouragement  was  authorized  by  the  decree,  under  certain  re- 
strictions and  limitations,  to  contract  with  the  owners  of  quicksilver 
mines,  to  make  certain  advances  or  furnish  supplies  in  aid  of  their 
development  and  operation.  Castillero  was  not  the  owner  of  the  mine, 
and  consequently  had  no  capacity  to  enter  into  such  a  contract ;  but 
the  Board  contracted  with  him  notwithstanding,  and  thereby  conferred 
upon  him  the  ownership  of  the  mine,  and  the  consequent  capacity  to 
contract,  a  conclusion  so  manifestly  untenable,  as  to  require  only  to  be 
stated  in  order  to  show  the  error  of  the  argument  from  which  it  is 
drawn. 

But,  again,  is  there  any  evidence  in  the  case,  as  disclosed  by  the 
record  of  the  proceedings  before  the  Mining  Junta,  that  a  contract 
was  entered  into  with  Castillero  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of 


118 

the  decree  of  the  30th  of  September,  1843,  which  the  opinion  alleges 
constituted  the  authority  for  making  such  a  contract.  I  think  not ; 
on  the  contrary  an  examination  of  the  petition  of  Castillero  and 
the  other  proceedings  in  relation  to  it,  will  show  that  the  transaction 
referred  to  was  an  arrangement  entered  into  between  the  Mining 
Junta  and  the  claimants,  entirely  independent  and  outside  of  the  pro- 
visions of  the  decree.  The  petition  of  Castillero  commences  by 
setting  out  that  he  had  discovered  in  the  Mission  of  Santa  Clara  a 
quicksilver  mine  of  extraordinary  richness  ;  that  he  had  denounced 
and  taken  possession  of  said  mine,  and  also  of  an  extent  of  three 
thousand  varas  in  every  direction  from  said  point :  that  he  had  formed 
a  company  to  work  it ;  constructed  the  pit,  and  complied  with  the 
other  conditions  prescribed  by  the  ordinance.  He  therefore  makes 
application  to  the  Junta  to  furnish  the  small  assistance  which  he  con- 
sidered necessary,  in  order  to  carry  on  his  operations,  consisting  of  an 
advance  of  five  thousand  dollars  in  cash,  the  retorts,  cylinders,  and 
other  distilling  apparatus,  and  also  iron  flasks  for  bottling  the  quick- 
silver. The  petition  then  proceeds  in  the  following  tenor,  "  I  would 
have  preferred  a  contract  of  partnership,  an  avio,  or  some  other  agree- 
ment, if  there  had  been  time  to  be  able  to  furnish  the  proofs  and  de- 
tails which  would  be  required  for  said  contracts ;  but  being  com- 
promised by  the  Supreme  Government  to  leave  this  capital  within  a 
few  days,  I  find  it  necessary  to  restrict  myself  to  that  which 
appears  to  present  no  difficulty,  and  which  may  open  the  way 
to  our  future  agreements.  I  am  well  persuaded  that  the  Junta 
will  accede  to  my  request,  so  far  as  may  be  within  its  powers, 
and  that  it  will  send  up  to  the  Supreme  Government,  with  a 
recommendation,  that  which  may  require  the  decision  of  the 
latter."  He  then  goes  on  and  states,  under  six  different  heads, 
the  precise  character  of  his  propositions,  and  two  alternative  modes, 
in  which  the  advances  to  be  made  by  the  Junta  might  be  refunded, 
to  which  are  added  the  following  articles,  numbered  7  and  8. 

"  Seventh.  The  Junta  shall  represent  to  the  Supreme  Government 
the  necessity  of  approving  the  possession  which  has  been  given  me  of 
the  mine  by  the  local  authorities  of  California,  in  the  same  terms  as 
those  in  which  I  now  hold  it." 

"  Eighth.  It  shall  also  represent  the  advantages  of  there  being 
granted  to  me,  as  a  colonist,  two  square  leagues  upon  the  land  of  my 
mining  possession,  with  the  object  of  being  able  to  use  the  wood  for 
my  burnings."  The  petition  concludes  as  follows :  "  The  subscriber 
subjects  this  request  to  the  deliberation  of  the  Junta,  which  if  ac- 
cepted may  be  made  into  a  formal  contract,  and  made  legal  in  the 
most  proper  manner."  This  petition,  with  the  recommendations  asked 
for  in  it,  was  transmitted  to  the  Supreme  Government  by  the  Junta, 
in  reply  to  which  the  following  communication  was  addressed  by  the 


119 

Minister  of  Exterior  Relations  and  Government,  to  the  President  of 
the  Junta. 

"  Most  Excellent  Sir  : — Having  reported  to  His  Excellency, 
the  President,  ad  interim,  of  the  Republic,  your  Excellency's  note  of 
the  14th  inst.,  with  which  you  were  pleased  to  transmit,  with  a  rec- 
ommendation, the  petition  of  Senor  Don  Andres  Castillero,  for  the 
encouragement  of  the  quicksilver  mine,  which  he  has  discovered  in 
the  Mission  of  Santa  Clara,  in  Upper  California,  His  Excellency  has 
been  pleased  to  approve,  in  all  its  parts,  the  agreement  made  with 
that  individual,  in  order  to  commence  the  extraction  of  the  said  min- 
eral ;  and  on  this  day  the  communication  has  been  made  to  the  Min- 
ister of  Exterior  Relations  and  Government,  to  issue  proper  orders 
respecting  that  which  is  contained  in  the  8th  proposition,  for  the  grant 
of  lands  in  that  Department. 

I  repeat  to  your  Excellency  the  assurances,  &c. 

God  and  Liberty.     Mexico,  May  20, 1846.  - 

(Signed.)  .    BECERRA. 

To  His  Excellency,  Don  Vicente  Segura,  President  of  the  Junta  for 
the  encouragement  of  mining. 

Now,  I  deny,  in  the  first  place,  that  these  proceedings  can  be  con- 
strued to  amount  to  a  contract  at  all.  It  is  manifest  from  the  face  of 
the  documents,  that  it  was  a  simple  proposition  on  the  part  of  Castillero, 
which,  when  approved  by  the  Junta  and  the  Government,  should  form 
the  basis  of  a  contract  to  be  entered  into  in  future.  This  is  apparent 
from  the  concluding  clause  of  the  petition,  in  which  the  petitioner 
declares  that  his  propositions,  if  accepted,  may  be  made  into  a  formal 
contract,  and  made  legal  in  the  most  proper  mode.  There  is  no  proof 
that  this  ever  was  done,  or  that  the  transaction  was  ever  consummated 
by  a  formal  agreement  between  the  parties. 

In  the  absence,  then,  of  any  proof  of  a  contract,  all  the  conclu- 
sions drawn  from  its  supposed  effects  in  conferring  a  right  of  property 
in  the  mine  on  the  claimant  necessarily  fail.  But  admitting,  for  the 
sake  of  the  argument,  that  the  proceedings  operated  as  a  contract,  I 
deny  that  it  was  made  under  the  decree  of  the  30th  of  September, 
1843,  but  was  an  arrangement  independent,  and  outside  of  its  pro- 
visions. A  very  brief  reference  to  that  decree,  in  connection  with 
the  petition  of  Castillero  to  the  Junta,  will  be  sufficient  to  establish 
that  point.  Before  the  Junta  was  authorized  to  contract  for  advances 
or  supplies  to  be  furnished  for  the  working  of  quicksilver  niines^the 
following  requirements  of  the  decree  had  to  be  complied  with  :  First, 


120 

it  was  necessary  that  an  examination  of  the  mine  should  be  had  by  a 
commissioner,  to  be  appointed  by  the  Board  for  that  purpose,  and  a 
report  of  the  same  made  upon  the  following  points.  1st.  As  to  the 
condition  of  the  mine,  and  its  susceptibility  of  being  worked.  2d. 
As  to  the  works  necessary,  and  the  expense  required  to  put  them  in 
operation.  3d.  The  quality  of  the  ore,  and  the  cost  of  working  and 
extracting  the  metal :  and  secondly,  there  must  have  been  an  owner 
of  the  mine,  with  whom  the  Board  might  enter  into  the  contract  for 
advances  or  supplies,  on  the  principle  of  a  partnership,  as  the  case  might 
be.  A  reference  to  the  proceeding  will  show  that  none  of  these  con- 
ditions were  complied  with — indeed,  if  they  had  been,  there  would 
have  been  no  necessity  for  applying  to  the  Supreme  Government  for 
its  approval,  as  the  Board  would  have  possessed  ample  power  without 
such  additional  authority. 

The  only  evidence  of  owership  presented  to  the  Junta  by  Castillero, 
was  his  own  assertion  that  he  had  denounced  and  taken  possession  of 
the  mine,  and  had  complied  with  the  other  requirements  of  the  ordi- 
nance. It  is  very  evident  that  the  proceedings  before  the  Alcalde  in 
California  were  never  laid  before  the  Junta.  If  they  had  been,  they 
would,  under  the  practice  in  Mexico,  have  constituted  a  part  of  the 
expediente,  or  at  least  some  reference  would  have  been  made  to  them ; 
but  in  addition  to  this,  the  fact  that  in  the  petition  of  Castillero  to  the 
Junta,  and  throughout  the  proceeding  before  that  body,  the  mine  is 
described  as  in  the  Mission  of  Santa  Clara,  and  consequently  on  the 
public  domain,  whereas  the  proceedings  before  the  Alcalde  that  it  was 
in  fact  on  the  private  property  of  Berreyesa,  is  conclusive  of  that 
point.  Castillero  seems  to  have  been  fully  aware  of  the  obstacles  to 
his  entering  into  a  contract,  under  the  decree  referred  to,  when  he 
uses  the  language  quoted  above  in  his  petition,  in  which  he  says,  that 
he  would  have  proposed  a  contract  of  partnership,  an  "  avio,"  or 
some  other  agreement,  if  there  had  been  time  to  be  able  to  furnish 
the  necessary  proofs  and  details.  This  quotation,  evidently,  has  refer- 
ence to  the  provisions  of  the  decree  ;  the  term  "  avio "  meaning 
advances  made  for  the  working  of  quicksilver  mines,  and  the  word 
"  aviador,"  used  in  the  law,  the  person  who  furnishes  supplies  for  that 
purpose.  The  proofs  and  details,  which  time  would  not  allow  him  to 
furnish,  refer  to  the  evidence  of  ownership,  which  was  necessary  in 
order  to  enable  him  to  contract :  and  to  the  report  of  the  Commis- 
sioners upon  the  character  of  the  mine,  and  the  other  particulars 
required  by  the  law.  He  therefore  proposes  a  temporary  arrange- 
ment, which  he  supposes  the  Junta,  and  the  approval  of  the  Govern- 
ment, may  be  authorized  to  make,  in  order  to  commence  the  working 
of  the  mines,  and  which,  in  the  words  of  the  petition,  "  may  open  a 
way  to  their  future  agreements."  These  circumstances  prove  clearly, 
to  my  mind,  that  no  contract  under  the  decree  was  ever  made  or  con- 


121 

templated  by  the  parties,  and  that  the  arrangement  proposed  to  be 
entered  into,  but  which  was  never  consummated,  was  merely  prelimi- 
nary to  such  contract,  when  Castillero  should,  by  perfecting  his  right 
to  the  mine,  and  complying  with  the  requisition  of  the  decree,  have 
put  himself  in  a  condition  to  make  such  a  contract. 

It  may  be  said  that  the  decree  of  the  Government  approving  the 
propositions  of  Castillero,  included  the  7th  Art.,  which  required  the 
Junta  to  recommend  to  the  Government  the  approval  of  the  posses- 
sion which  had  been  given  him  of  the  mine  by  the  local  authorities 
in  California ;  but  an  examination  of  this  decree  will  show  that  the 
approval  only  had  reference  to  that  part  of  the  proposed  agreement 
which  related  to  the  advances  to  be  made  for  the  purpose  of  com- 
mencing the  extraction  of  the  metal. 

The  8th  proposition,  in  relation  to  the  grant  of  two  leagues  of  land,; 
is  treated  of  separately,  and  is  referred  to  the  Governor  of  California, 
to  whose  jurisdiction  it  properly  belonged.  To  the  7th  no  reference 
is  made  in  the  decree.  The  reason  of  this  is  obvious  :  the  law  has 
created  tribunals,  to  which  all  subjects  relating  to  the  acquisition  of 
property  in  mines  was  committed,  and  to  these  tribunals,  the  party 
was,  very  properly,  left  for  the  purpose  of  surveying  or  perfecting  his 
right  in  the  premises.  This  course  was  in  entire  conformity  with 
their  action  in  relation  to  the  petition  for  the  two  leagues  of  land  as  a 
Colonist.  The  subject  of  colonization,  and  granting  of  lands  in  Cali- 
fornia, was  committed  to  the  Governor  of  that  Department :  the  Pres- 
ident did  not,  therefore,  think  proper  to  interfere  with  the  functions 
of  that  officer,  and  therefore  referred  that  part  of  the  petition  to  him. 
So  in  regard  to  the  acquisition  of  mining  rights.  The  Mining  Depu- 
ties of  the  district,  or  of  the  one  nearest  to  it,  were  charged  with  the 
subject ;  and  the  government  had  no  power  or  authority,  under  the 
law,  to  interfere  with  their  functions ;  they,  consequently,  make  no 
reference  whatever  to  that  portion  of  his  petition. 

It  is  to  be  observed,  that  these  proceedings  took  place  at  the  pre- 
cise period  when  the  war  between  the  United  States  and  Mexico  com- 
menced.- Castillero  was  then  under  orders  to  leave  the  Capital  in 
public  service,  and  the  probability  is,  that  he  left  without  taking  any 
further  steps  in  the  matter,  leaving  his  right  to  the  mine  in  the  imper- 
fect and  inchoate  state  in  which  we  find  them.  California  was,  soon 
after,  taken  possession  of  by  the  American  forces,  and  no  further 
opportunity  was  afforded  him  for  perfecting  them. 

After  a  careful  examination  of  the  evidence  in  the  case,  and  the 
laws  of  Spain  and  Mexico  applicable  to  the  subject,  I  am  clearly  of 
the  opinion,  that  the  claimant  has  not,  upon  either  of  the  grounds  pre- 
sented in  the  Opinion  of  the  Majority,  established  such  a  right  in  the 
mine,  as  would  constitute  it  property,  within  the  meaning  of  the  treaty 
of  Guadalupe  Hidalgo,  even  admitting,  that  such  a  right,  if  perfected, 


■■ 


122 

could  be  considered  a  claim  for  land,  and  subject  to  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  Commission  under  the  provisions  of  the  Act  of  the  3d  of  March, 
1851,  which  brings  me  to  the  consideration  of  the  third  proposition 
asserted  in  the  Opinions  of  the  majority,  to  wit :  Tn    ■ 

That  the  claim  presented  in  this  case,  is  a  claim  for  land,  within  the 
meaning  of  the  act,  and,  as  such,  is  subject  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
Commission. 

The  leading  feature  of  the  argument  by  which  this  proposition  is 
maintained  in  the  Opinion  of  the  Majority,  may  be  stated  thus : 
Under  the  laws  of  Spain  and  Mexico,  the  interest  which  the  subject 
or  citizen  could  acquire  in  the  mines,  was  "  in  property  and  possession, 
in  such  manner  that  they  could  sell,  exchange,  pass  by  will  either  in 
the  way  of  inheritance  or  legacy,  or  in  any  other  manner  dispose  of 
all  their  property  in  them,  upon  the  terms  on  which  they  themselves 
possess  it,  to  persons  legally  capable  of  acquiring  it."  Hence  it  is 
argued  that  such  an  interest  conferred  a  right  of  property  in  the  land 
itself,  which  was  protected  by  the  treaty  of  Guadalupe  Hidalgo,  and 
subject  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Commission  under  the  provisions  of 
the  Act  of  Congress  of  the  3d  of  March,  1851. 

I  may  very  safely  admit  the  premises  laid  down  in  the  foregoing 
proposition,  without,  by  any  means,  acknowledging  the  correctness  of 
the  conclusions  drawn  from  them.  Property  is  denned  in  the  books 
to  be  the  right  and  interest  which  a  man  has  in  lands  and  chattels,  to 
the  exclusion  of  others,  and  is  divided  into  corporeal  and  incorporeal ; 
the  former  comprehends  such  property  as  is  perceptible  to  the  senses, 
such  as  lands,  houses,  goods,  merchandise,  &c. ;  the  latter  consists  of 
legal  rights,  as  choses  in  action,  easements,  and  the  like.  There  are 
many  things  incident  to  land,  in  which  an  individual  may  acquire  a 
right  of  property  and  possession,  and  yet  have  no  proprietary  right  in 
the  land  itself —  such  as  a  right  of  way,  and  other  easements  of  a 
similar  character.  Under  the  Common  Law,  and  the  laws  of  most  of 
the  States  of  the  Union,  an  individual  or  company,  or  the  public, 
might  in  a  proceeding  in  the  nature  of  a  writ  of  adquod  damnum,  ac- 
quire a  right  of  way  through  the  lands  of  another ;  and  such  a  right 
would  possess  all  the  characteristics  of  property,  claimed  for  the  min- 
ing rights  of  the  citizens  of  Mexico  in  this  case.  It  would  b3  defined 
by  metes  and  bounds,  it  would  give  the  exclusive  right  of  possession 
and  occupancy  for  the  purpose  indicated,  it  might  be  sold  or  ex- 
changed, and  would  pass  by  will  or  in  the  way  of  inheritance  ab. 
intestate;  the  possessor  of  it  might  also  be  designated,  with  propriety, 
by  all  the  terms  applied  to  the  mine  owner  in  the  laws  and  authorities 
cited  in  the  Opinion  of  the  Majority,  such  as,  "  master  of  the  prop- 
erty," "proprietor,"  u  owner  of  the  property,"  &c,  yet  it  has  been 
repeatedly  decided  by  the  Courts,  both  in  thi3  country  and  England, 
that  such  a  right  conferred  no  property  in  the  land ;  the  rights  of 


123 

the  original  proprietor  in  the  soil  were  continuous,  subject  to  the  ease- 
ment, and  whenever  it  ceased  to  be  used  for  the  purpose  for  which  it 
was  assigned,  he  was  free  to  enter  again  into  the  possession.  The 
rights  of  the  citizen  in  mines  acquired  under  the  ordinances  in  Spain 
and  Mexico,  as  defined  in  the  Commentaries  of  Gamboa,  presents  so 
close  an  analogy  with  that  of  the  owner  of  a  right  of  way  under  the 
Common  Law,  as  to  leave  no  doubt  on  my  mmd,  that  they  were  inci- 
dental in  their  nature.  A  few  quotations  from  the  Commentaries,  as 
translated  in  Rockwell,  will  I  think,  establish  this  position  beyond  con- 
troversy. Gamboa,  in  arguing  in  favor  of  the  right  of  the  Crown  to 
the  mines,  and  in  sects.  19  and  20,  proceeds  as  follows  :  "  Our  opin- 
ion is  further  confirmed  by  the  circumstance,  that  the  newly  discov- 
ered mine  can  be  worked  until  registered,  and  that  no  old  mine,  once 
abandoned,  can  be  worked  again  until  denounced  and  registered 
before  the  Justice :  and  that  the  boundaries  of  mines  cannot  be 
assigned,  or  the  working  conducted  in  an  arbitrary  manner,  but 
according  to  the  rules  of  the  ordinances  only  ;  so  that  an  acknowledg- 
ment of  the  right  is  in  fact  made  to  the  King,  or  to  the  Justice  in  his 
name.  And  by  the  laws  of  the  Indies,  a  license  must  be  obtained 
previous  to  searching  for  mines  or  pearl  banks,  and  an  oath  must  be 
taken  that  all  discoveries  shall  be  duly  reported  for  the  better  levying 
of  the  revenue.  And  an  additional  corroboration  of  this  opinion  is 
derived  from  the  circumstance  of  permission  being  given  to  try  for 
mines  in  the  ground  of  any  other  proprietor,  and  of  the  latter  being 
disabled  from  making  any  objection,  provided  a  compensation  be  made 
to  him  for  any  damage  to  his  property.  For  this,  as  we  have  already 
seen,  would  not  be  tolerated  by  the  civil  law,  were  it  not  authorized 
by  the  crown,  in  the  exercise  of  its  supreme  right  of  property  over 
the  mines,  and  were  it  not  a  consequence  of  their  having  been  reserved 
for  the  general  benefit  of  the  subject,  so  that  all  persons  should  be  at 
liberty  to  search  for  and  profit  by  them.  But  after  all,  the  strongest 
ground  of  argument  is  afforded  by  the  laws  of  Castile  and  of  the 
Indies  themselves,  which  give  the  subject  an  interest  merely,  and  not 
a  separate  and  absolute  property  in  them,  and  which  authorizes  him 
to  deal  with  them  in  such  manner  only,  as  shall  be  consistent  with  the 
regulations  of  the  ordinances.  And  thus  although  the  grant  gives  a 
right  of  property,  yet  it  only  amounts  to  the  session  of  a  partial  in- 
terest, and  not  to  an  absolute  transfer ;  the  supreme  right  of  property 
remaining  vested  in  the  Crown. " 

"  Sec.  20.  The  correct  opinion  then  seems  to  be  that  the  property 
of  the  mines  remains  vested  in  the  Crown,  and  that  as  the  sovereign 
cannot  work  on  his  own  account,  he  has  given  his  subjects  a  partial 
interest  in  them  under  various  restrictions,  and  subject  to  various  lia- 
bilities ;  and  as  proof  of  this,  it  may  be  observed  that,  at  first,  the  law 
made  the  quicksilver  mines,  amongst  others,  common :  that  subse- 


124 

quently,  it  was  left  to  the  discretion  of  the  Viceroy  to  allow  the  discov- 
erers of  the  mines  such  advantages  as  they  might  think  proper ;  but 
that  finally,  they  were  reserved  for  the  use  of  the  Crown  only,  and  are 
not  allowed  to  be  worked  in  New  Spain ;  all  of  which  is  evidence  of 
the  supreme  right  of  the  Crown."     Rockwell,  pp.  130  and  131. 

So  also  the  Ordinances  of  1783.  Rockwell,  p.  53.  "  Any  person 
may  discover  and  denounce  a  vein,  not  only  on  common  land,  but  also 
on  the  property  of  any  individual,  provided  he  pays  for  the  extent  of 
surface  above  the  same,  and  the  damage  that  immediately  ensues 
therefrom." 

"  By  the  civil  law,"  says  Gamboa,  "  all  veins  and  mineral  deposits 
of  gold  or  silver  ore,  or  of  precious  stones,  belongs,  if  in  public  grounds, 
to  the  sovereign,  and  are  part  of  his  patrimony.  If  on  private  prop- 
erty, they  belong  to  the  owner  of  the  land,  subject  to  the  condition, 
that  if  worked  by  the  owner,  he  was  bound  to  render  a  tenth  part  to 
the  Prince,  as  a  right  attaching  to  the  Crown."     Rockwell,  p.  124. 

"  Under  the  law  of  Partida,  the  property  of  the  mines  was  so  vested 
in  the  King,  that  they  were  held  not  to  pass  in  the  grant  of  the  land, 
although  not  excepted  out  of  the  grant,  and  even  though  inclusive  in 
it,  the  grant  was  valid  as  to  them  only  during  the  life  of  the  King  who 
made  it.  Afterwards,  by  a  law  of  Don  Alphonso  the  11th,  in  the 
'  Ordinamiento  Real,'  copied  in  the  collection  of  Castile,  all  veins  of 
gold  or  silver  or  any  other  metal  whatsoever,  and  the  produce  of  the 
same,  were  declared  to  be  the  property  of  the  Crown."  Rockwell,  125. 

In  discussing  the  question,  whether  under  the  then  existing  law, 
upon  the  discovery  of  a  mine  upon  the  ground  of  another  proprietor, 
the  owner  of  the  soil  is  entitled  to  claim  precedence  of,  and  to  oust 
the  discoverer,  Gamboa  insists  that  the  discoverer  is  to  be  preferred, 
and  assigns  his  reasons  in  the  following  language : 

"  First,  because  he  who  first  takes  possession  according  to  law  is  in 
a  better  condition ;  second,  because  the  mine  or  vein  is  not  part  of  the 
estate,  nor  did  it  pass  with  the  land,  but  is  common,  and  falls  to  him 
who  first  takes  possession  :  provided  he  comply  with  the  directions  of 
the  ordinances  concerning  registry."     Rock.,  109. 

These  extracts  demonstrate  clearly  to  my  mind,  that  the  vein  was, 
in  contemplation  of  law,  a  thing  separate  and  distinct  from  the  land  ; 
and  the  right  which  the  discoverer  or  denouncer  could  acquire  in  it 
under  the  ordinances,  was  a  mere  incideut  to  the  land,  or  easement, 
subject  to  be  divested  at  any  time  by  non-user,  or  a  failure  to  comply 
with  the  other  conditions  prescribed  by  them.  But  this  will  be  still 
more  apparent,  when  I  come  to  consider  the  causes  which,  according 
to  Gamboa,  operated  a  forfeiture  of  the  miner's  right  to  the  mine,  and 
divested  him  entirely  of  all  his  interest  in  it.  An  examination  of  the 
following  extracts  from  the  commentaries,  will  show  how  slight  and  un- 
certain was  the  tenure  by  which  the  miner  held  his  right  to  work  the 


125 

mine  ;  and  will  establish  fully  the  analogy  between  the  right  of  way, 
under  the  common  law,  and  that  now  under  consideration.  It  will  be 
seen  that  the  non-performance  of  the  condition  operated,  ipso  facto,  to 
divest  him  of  his  right :  that  these  conditions  were  not,  as  asserted  in 
the  opinions  of  the  majority,  in  the  nature  of  conditions  subsequent, 
the  performance  of  which  perfected  the  right,  and  made  the  estate  ab- 
solute, but  were  continuous,  and  operated  a  divestiture  at  any  time 
when  a  failure  to  comply  with  them  occurred  ;  and  so  complete  was  the 
divestiture  that  the  miner  could  never  afterwards  re-assert  his  right, 
without  a  proceding  de  novo  in  denouncement,  according  to  the  pro- 
visions of  the  ordinance.  On  this  point,  Gamboa  holds  the  following 
language : 

"  Having  investigated  what  number  of  persons  must  be  employed, 
and  what  description  of  labor  presented,  to  constitute  a  sufficient  work- 
ing in  point  of  law,  the  ordinance  proceeds  to  impose  the  penalty  of 
forfeiting  the  mine,  ipso  facto,  upon  leaving  it  insufficiently  worked  for 
four  months  successively,  and  that  he  shall  have  no  right  to  the  mine 
unless  by  making  registry  thereof  anew,  and  going  through  the  other 
proceedings,  in  conformity  with  the  ordinance.'.'     Rockwell,  313. 

"  The  second  point  established,  by  words  of  the  ordinance,  in  pro- 
viding that  by  leaving  the  mine  unworked  for  four  consecutive  months, 
the  party  to  whom  it  shall  belong,  shall,  ipso  facto,  forfeit  it,  is  that 
although  the  person  who  has  left  the  mine  unworked,  should  again  set 
it  at  work  before  it  has  been  denounced  by  any  other  person,  yet  he 
can  claim  no  title  to  the  mine,  and  any  other  person  may  denounce  it 
as  not  having  been  registered,  and  as  merely  held  in  the  possession  of 
the  party  contrary  to  right."     Rockwell,  315. 

"  A  party  denouncing  a  mine,  and  applying  to  have  it  adjudged  to 
him  as  insufficiently  worked,  or  upon  any  other  ground,  under  which 
the  ordinances  declare  it  forfeited,  should  make  registry  of  it  anew, 
and  observe  the  conditions  limited  by  the  ordinance,  as  appeared  from 
the  ordinances  themselves  in  the  places  above  cited.  The  old  registry 
is  of  no  avail,  for  every  thing  is  to  be  done  anew,  the  mine  itself  under 
the  iiew  registry  is  a  new  subject,  the  three  c  estados  '  must  be  sunk 
anew,  the  possession  is  given  anew,  and  the  possessor  is  new.  Rece- 
dant  vetera  nova  sint  omnia." 

"  The  first  registry  is,  in  fact,  abolished,  extinguished,  and  annihi- 
lated, so  completely  that,  as  is  clearly  laid  down  in  the  ordinance,  the 
very  party  who  has  abandoned  the  mine,  having  forfeited  it  by  leaving 
it  insufficiently  worked,  <  has  no  right  to  it  except  by  making  registry 
of  it  anew,'  so  that,  even  supposing  no  new  party  to  interpose,  a  fresh 
registry  is  required,  the  original  registry  being  of  no  avail,  even  to  the 
same  individual ;  but  being  merged,  and  annihilated,  without  leaving 
a  trace  even  in  favor  of  the  party  himself  who  originally  made  it." 
Rockwell,  245,  247. 


126 

These  authorities  seem  to  me  so  conclusive  as  scarcely  to  require 
comment.  They  establish,  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt,  that  under  the 
law  of  Spain  and  Mexico,  the  title  to  the  mine  never  passed  from  the 
Crown  or  Government,  and  that  the  right  acquired  by  the  discoverer 
or  denouncer,  under  the  ordinances,  was  simply  an  easement,  which 
gave  the  party  a  right  to  possess  and  occupy  the  mine,  and  a  certain 
portion  of  the  land  above  it  for  the  purposes,  and  upon  the  conditions 
prescribed  by  the  laws  upon  the  subject,  without  conferring  any  right 
of  property  in  the  land  itself,  of  which  this  Commission  would  take 
cognizance. 

The  Supreme  Court,  in  the  case  of  Chateau  vs.  Molony,  10  How- 
ard, p.  203,  have  cited  and  revised  many  of  these  authorities,  and  al- 
though they  do  not,  in  direct  terms,  decide  upon  the  relative  rights  of 
the  Government,  and  the  discoverer  or  denouncer  in  the  mines,  or 
the  nature  of  the  interest  acquired  by  the  latter  under  the  ordinances, 
yet  the  plain  inference  from  the  views  of  the  Court,  as  expressed  in  the 
opinion,  is,  that  the  right  of  property  never  passed  from  the  former,  and 
that  the  interest  of  the  latter  was  a  right  of  occupancy  merely,  subject 
to  be  determined  at  any  time  by  a  new  compliance  with  the  conditions 
on  which  they  were  held.  But  whether  this  be  so  or  not,  there  is  one 
point,  I  think,  clearly  established  by  the  Court  in  that  case,  and 
that  is,  that  mines  are  not  lands  within  the  meaning  of  the  act  of 
Congress  of  the  3d  of  March,  1851.  An  examination  of  the  opinion 
will  show  that  the  Court  everywhere  discriminate  between  mines  and 
lands  ;  indeed,  the  case  was  decided  mainly  on  the  ground  that  the 
grant  to  Dubuque  was  a  grant  of  a  mining  privilege,  and  not  of  land. 
After  discussing  the  law  of  Spain  in  relation  to  mining  rights,  and  de- 
ciding that  the  Indians  could,  under  these  laws,  acquire  such  rights, 
the  Court  say :  "  With  these  rights  and  privileges,  it  is  much 
more  rational  to  construe  the  contract  of  the  Foxes  with  Dubuque 
into  a  sale  and  purchase  of  mines,  than  into  a  transfer  of  lands" 
Again  they  say  :  "  We  do  not  doubt  that  Dubuque  meant  to  ask  for 
lands,  as  well  as  mines.  But  the  true  point  is  not  what  he  meant  to 
ask  for,  but  what  he  had  a  right  to  ask  for,  under  his  contract  with  the 
Indians,  and  what  the  Crown  meant  to  grant,  and  could  grant  under 
that  contract."     11  Howard,  231,  232,  233,  254. 

We  find  this  distinction  running  through  the  whole  opinion,  and  the 
inevitable  conclusion  from  it  is,  that  a  grant  of  minos  or  mining  privi- 
leges, and  a  grant  of  lands  are  two  separate  and  distinct  things,  and 
as  a  necessary  corollary  to  this  proposition,  the  power  to  adjudicate  a 
right  or  title  to  lands,  would  not  embrace  a  grant  of  a  mine,  or  a  min- 
ing privilege. 

It  is  true  that  under  the  laws  of  Mexico,  the  miners  were  relieved 
from  many  onerous  burdens,  to  which  they  were  subjected  under  those 
of  Spain.     But  none  of  these  charges  affected  in  any  manner  the  char- 


127 

acter  of  the  interest  which  they  held  in  the  mine,  or  the  tenure  under 
which  they  enjoyed  it.  That  a  complianoe  with  the  terms  of  the  ordi- 
nance would  give  a  right  of  property  in  the  mine,  which  the  treaty  of 
Guadalupe  Hidalgo  would  protect,  if  the  law  in  which  that  right  is 
founded  is  not  abrogated  by  the  act  of  cession,  does  not  admit  of  con- 
troversy ;  but  it  does  not  follow  that  it  was  such  a  right  to  lands  as 
wTould  give  this  Commission  jurisdiction  of  a  claim  founded  upon  it. 
Property  of  every  description,  real  as  well  as  personal,  is  protected  by 
the  treaty,  and  yet  it  will  scarcely  be  contended  that  the  Commission 
could  take  cognizance  of  a  claim  for  a  band  of  horses  or  a  herd  of 
cattle. 

I  am  by  no  means  satisfied  that  the  doctrine  laid  down  by  the  Su- 
preme Court  in  the  case  of  Fremont,  in  relation  to  mines,  does  not 
apply  in  this  case.  The  Court  very  correctly  state,  that  the  existence 
or  non-existence  of  mines  on  the  premises,  would  not  in  that  case  affect 
the  claimant's  right  to  a  confirmation  of  the  title  to  the  land ;  they 
then  go  on  and  say  :  "  Whether  there  be  mines  on  the  land,  and  if 
there  be  any,  what  are  the  rights  of  sovereignty  in  them  ?  are  ques- 
tions which  must  be  decided  in  another  form  of  proceeding,  and  are 
not  subjected  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Commission  or  the  Court,  by 
the  act  of  1850." 

I  can  very  well  see  why  the  question  of  the  existence  or  non- 
existence of  mines,  could  have  no  bearing  on  the  decision  in  that  case, 
as  no  claim  for  the  mines  was  set  up,  but  simply  for  the  lands  under 
an  ordinary  colonization  grant.  But  this  case  is  widely  different.  The 
claim  is  for  the  mine  itself,  and  a  certain  portion  of  land  appurtenant 
thereto,  and  held  under  -the  same  right.  This  is  a  proceeding  between 
the  claimant  and  the  United  States,  to  whom  the  sovereignty  of  the 
country  passed,  by  virtue  of  the  treaty  of  cession.  It  is  not  denied, 
that  under  the  Mexican  law,  the  title  to  the  mines  was  vested  in  the 
Government ;  if  therefore,  the  right  of  Castillero  to  the  mine  is  not 
established,  the  title  to  it  would  remain  in  the  United  States,  as  the 
successor  of  Mexico  ;  this  raises  directly  the  issue  as  to  the  existence 
of  thymine,  and  the  right  of  the  sovereign  in  it ;  the  very  questions 
which  the  Court  say,  in  express  terms,  are  not  submitted  to  the  juris- 
diction of  the  Commission  or  the  Court  under  the  act  of  1851. 

There  are  other  objections  to  the  confirmation  of  this  claim,  and  to 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  Commission  over  the  subject,  which  I  think 
carry  with  them  much  force,  but  which  the  great  length  to  which  this 
opinion  has  extended,  will  prevent  my  discussing  in  detail.  I  will 
therefore  content  myself  with  barely  suggesting  a  few  of  them :  ^ 

1.  "  The  jurisdiction  of  this  Commission  only  embraces  claims  to 
land  which  has  been  severed  from  the  public  domain,  the  limits  of 
which  can  be  fixed  by  certain  metes  and  bounds,  and  the  titles  to 
which  can  be  finally  settled."     The  Supreme  Court,  in  the  case  of 


128 

Smith  vs.  The  United  States,  10  Peters,  p.  330,  distinctly  affirm  the 
principle  here  laid  down.  The  following  is  the  language  of  the  Court : 
"  The  land  claimed  must  have  been  severed  from  the  general  domain 
of  the  king,  by  some  grant  which  gives  it  locality  by  its  terms,  or  by 
reference  to  some  description."  Again,  page  333-34,  they  say  : 
"  These  provisions  show  clearly  that  Congress  did  not  contemplate  the 
submission  of  any  claims  to  the  Court,  except  such  as,  on  confirmation 
could  be  surveyed  and  patented,  and  on  rejection,  would  be  thence- 
forth held  and  taken  to  be  a  part  of  the  public  domain."  The  author- 
ities already  cited  in  this  opinion  prove  abundantly,  that  in  the  case  of 
mines,  no  such  severance  from  the  public  domain  ever  took  place.  The 
ordinance  of  1783  expressly  declares  that,  "  without  separating  them 
from  any  royal  patrimony,  I  grant,  &c."  This  grant  is  made  on  con- 
ditions that  never  cease  to  bind  the  property,  the  violation  of  which 
operate  an  immediate  forfeiture  of  the  right.     Rockwell,  p.  49. 

A  confirmation  of  this  claim,  therefore,  even  upon  the  supposition 
that  he  had  perfected  his  right  to  the  mine,  according  to  law,  followed 
by  a  patent  conveying  the  mine  and  appurtenances  to  the  claimant  in 
fee  simple,  which  is  the  only  form  recognized  by  our  law,  would  give 
the  claimant  a  title  or  right  of  property  which  the  Government  of 
Mexico  could  not  by  law  have  conferred  upon  him,  and  one  which  it 
was  impossible  for  him  to  acquire.  It  would  be  giving  to  him  greater 
rights  than  he  possessed  under  the  former  government,  and  would  be 
in  effect  the  exercise  of  legislative  powers  on  the  part  of  the  Commis- 
sion and  the  Courts. 

2.  The  laws  of  Spain  and  Mexico,  regulating  the  discovery,  reg- 
istration, and  working  of  the  mines,  may  well  be  classed  with  these 
political  laws,  when,  by  the  laws  of  nations,  are  abrogated  on  a  change 
of  sovereignty.  Their  principle  object  was  for  purposes  of  revenue, 
and  as  such  they  would  come  within  that  denomination.  If  so,  they 
were  clearly  annulled  by  the  treaty  of  cession,  and  all  rights  acquired 
under  them  would  necessarily  cease  and  determine.  From  the  best 
examination  I  have  been  able  to  give  to  the  subject,  I  can  discover  no 
grounds  upon  which  this  claim  can  be  confirmed,  either  upon  its  merits 
or  the  question  of  jurisdiction.  I,  therefore,  for  the  reasons  above  sta- 
rted, dissent  from  the  opinion  of  the  Board,  so  far  as  it  confirms  the 
claimant's  rights  to  the  mine  and  its  appurtenances.  In  that  part  of 
the  opinion  which  rejects  the  claim  for  two  leagues  of  land  under  the 
colonization  laws  of  Mexico,  I  concur. 

Filed  in  office  January  8th,  1856. 

GEO.  FISHER, 

Secretary. 


129 
DECREE. 

Andres  Castillero,    ) 

vs.  > 

The  United  States.   ) 

In  this  case,  on  hearing  the  proofs  and  allegations,  it  is  adjudged 
by  the  Commission,  that  the  claim  of  the  said  petitioner  to  the  mine 
known  by  the  name  of  New  Almaden,  (formerly  called  Santa  Clara,) 
together  with  the  right  of  enjoying  the  privileges  as  mine  owner  under 
the  Mexican  law,  within  the  space,  as  pertenencia,  of  three  thousand 
varas  in  all  directions  from  the  mouth  of  the  said  mine,  as  originally 
opened  by  said  Castillero,  is  valid,  and  it  is  therefore  decreed  that  the 
same  be  confirmed  to  him. 

And  as  to  all  other  rights,  property,  and  interests,  set  out  and 
claimed  in  the  petition  filed  in  this  case,  it  is  adjudged  that  the  same 
is  not  valid,  and  the  same  is  therefore  rejected. 

ALPHEUS  FELCH, 
R.  AUG:  THOMPSON, 
S.  B.  FARWELL. 


Filed  in  Office  Jan.  8,  1856. 


GEO.  FISHER, 

Secy. 


And  it  appearing  to  the  satisfaction  of  this  Board,  that  the  land 
hereby  adjudicated,  is  situated  in  the  Northern  District  of  California, 
it  is  hereby  ordered,  that  two  transcripts  of  the  proceedings  and  of 
the  decisions  in  this  case,  and  of  the  papers  and  evidence  upon  which 
the  same  are  founded,  be  made  out  and  duly  certified  by  the  Secre- 
tary ;  one  of  which  transcripts  shall  be  filed  with  the  Clerk  of  the 
United  States  District  Court  for  the  Northern  District  of  California, 
and  the  other  be  transmitted  to  the  Attorney  General  of  the  United 
States. 


OFFICE  OF  THE  BOARD  OF  COMMISSIONERS, 

To  ascertain  and  settle  the  Private  Land  Claims  in  the  State  of 

California. 

I,  George  Fisher,   Secretary  to  the  Board   of  Commissioners   to 
15 


130 

ascertain  and  settle  the  Private  Land  Claims  in  the  State  of  California, 
do  hereby  certify  the  foregoing  two  hundred  and  twenty  pages, 
numbered  from  1  to  220,  both  inclusive,  to  contain  a  true,  correct,  and 
full  Transcript  of  the  Record  of  the  Proceedings  and  of  the  Decision 
of  the  said  Board,  of  the  Documentary  Evidence  and  of  the  Testi- 
mony of  the  Witnesses,  upon  which  the  same  is  founded,  on  file  in 
this  Office,  in  Case  No.  366  on  the  Docket  of  the  said  Board,  wherein 
Andres  Castilloro  is  the  Claimant  against  the  United  States,  for  the 
place  known  by  the  name  of  New  Almaden. 

In  testimony  whereof  I  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  affix  my  private 
seal,  (not  having  a  seal  of  office,)  at  San  Francisco,  California,  this 
twenty-third  day  of  February,  A.  D.  1856,  and  of  the  Independence 
of  the  United  States  of  America  the  eightieth. 


seal  GEO.  FISHER, 

*— ^  '  Secy, 

(Endorsed :) 

Filed  February  26, 1856. 

John  A.  Monroe, 
Clerk, 


PROCEEDINGS 

IN   THE 

DISTRICT  COURT  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES, 

NORTHERN  DISTRICT  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


NOTICE    OF  INTENTION  TO  PROSECUTE  APPEAL. 
IN    THE    UNITED    STATES    DISTRICT    COURT. 

FOR  THE  NORTHERN  DISTRICT  OF  CALIFORNIA. 
No.  420. 

Andres  Castillero,  Appellant,  ) 

vs.  v  Mine  and  lands  of  New  Alamaden. 

The  United  States,  Appellees,  ) 

Transcript  from  Board  of  Commissioners,  No.  366. 

Andres  Castillero,  claimant  for  the  Mine  and  Lands  called  New  Alma- 
den,  situate  in  the  county  of  Santa  Clara  and  in  the  Northern  District 
of  California,  hereby  gives  notice  of  his  intention  to  prosecute  an  ap- 
peal from"  so  much  of  the  decision  of  the  Board  of  Commissioners  as 
rejects  his  claim  for  two  square  leagues  of  land  granted  to  him  in  col- 
onization, which  claim  was  presented  to  the  said  Board  and  by  them 
rejected  ;  his  claim  being  that  which  is  numbered  on  the  docket  of 
said  Board  No.  366,  and  the  transcript  whereof,  as  filed  in  the  office 
of  the  clerk  of  this  Court,  is  numbered  No.  420. 

HALLECK,  PEACHY  &  BILLINGS, 

Attorneys  for  Appellant. 

Endorsed  :  Filed  March  26, 1856. 

JOHN  A.  MONROE,  Clerk, 
by  W.  H.  Che  vers,  Deputy. 


132 
APPEAL  NOTICE. 

Office  of  the  Attorney  General  of  the  United  States,  ) 
Washington,  18  March,  1856.  j 

366.  "New  Almaden" 

Andres  Castillero,  Claimant : — You  will  please  take  notice  that 
in  the  above  case,  decided  by  the  Commissioners  to  ascertain  and  settle 
private  land  claims  in  the  State  of  California,  in  favor  of  the  claimant, 
and  a  transcript  of  the  proceedings  in  which  was  received  in  this  of- 
fice on  the  1st  day  of  March,  1856,  the  appeal  in  the  District  Court 
of  the  United  States  for  the  northern  district  of  California  will  be 
prosecuted  by  the  United  States.  C.  CUSHING, 

Attorney   General. 

Endorsed  :  Filed  April  15  1856, 

JOHN  A.  MONROE,  Clerk, 
by  W.  H.  Chevers,  Deputy. 


PETITION. 


UNITED    STATES  DISTRICT    COURT, 
northern  district,  california. 

The  United  States,  ) 

vs.  [  D.  C.  420  ;  L.  C.  366. 

Andres  Castillero.  \ 


The  United  States,  by  their  attorney,  represent  that  this  cause  is 
for  a  review  of  the  decision  of  the  U.  S.  Land  Commission,  whereby 
the  claim  of  the  Appellee  was  confirmed  in  part,  as  will  appear  by 
reference  to  to  the  record  in  the  case  ;  that  a  transcript  of  said  record 
was  filed  in  this  Court,  February  26,  1856  ;  that  a  notice  of  appeal 
was  filed  on  the  part  of  the  United  States,  April  15,  1856  ;  that  the 
land  claimed  lies  in  this  District,  and  that  said  claim  is  invalid. 

Wherefore  appellants  pray  that  this  Court  reverse  the  decision  of 
the  said  Commission,  and  decree  the  said  claim  invalid. 

Wm.  blanding, 

U.  S.  Attorney. 

Endorsed :  Filed  April  27,  1857, 

JOHN  A-  MONROE,  Clerk, 
by  W.  H.  Chevers,  Deputy. 


133 

DEPOSITION    OF   FRANCISCO   VILLEGASS. 

UNITED    STATES    DISTRICT    COURT, 

NORTHERN  DISTRICT  OP  CALIFORNIA. 

San  Francisco,  April  13, 1857. 
On  this  day,  before  Cutler  McAllister,  a  Commissioner  of  the  United 
States  for  the  northern  district  of  California,  duly  authorized  to  adminis- 
ter oaths,  &c,  &c,  came  Francisco  Villegass,  a  witness  produced  on  be- 
half of  the  claimants,  in  case  No.  420,  being  an  appealfrom  the  Board 
of  Commissioners  to  ascertain  and  settle  the  private  land  claims  in  the 
State  of  California,  in  case  No.  366  on  the  docket  of  the  said  Board 
of  Commissioners,  and  was  duly  sworn  and  testified  as  follows — his 
evidence  being  interpreted  by  John  P.  Brodie,  a  sworn  interpreter. 

Present: — A.  C.  Peachy,  Esq.,  for  claimant;  the  U.  S.  District 
Attorney. 

Questions  by  Attorney  of  Claimants. 

Question  1. — Your  name,  age  and  place  of  residence  ? 
f  Answer  1. — Francisco  Villegass ;  39  years  ;  I  reside  in  the  county 
of  Monterey,  on  the  ranch  of  San  Felipe. 

Question  2. — Of  what  country  are  you  a  native  ? 

Answer  2. — Of  the  State  of  Sonora. 

Question  3. — Did  you  ever  live  in  Lower  California  ? 
.     Answer  3. — The  most  part  of  my  life  I  spent  in  Lower  California. 
I  was  eight  years  of  age  when  I  went  there,  and  I  was  there  about 
23  or  24  years. 

Question  4. — Did  you  ever  hold  any  office  in  Lower  California ;  if 
yea,  state,  what  office,  when  and  how  long  you  held  them. 

Answer  4. — I  cannot  say  exactly  in  what  year  I  held  them,  but 
from  the  year  1830  to  .the  year  1848,  at  different  periods  during  that 
time.  -I  held  the  office  of  Scindico,  in  the  year  1830  or  1831;  also 
the  office  of  Justice  of  the  Peace,  to  act  in  the  absence  of  the  first 
Justice  of  the  Peace,  which  office  is  called  "  Juez  supplente  de  paz" 
perhaps  about  the  year  1836  or  1837,  about  as  near  as  I  can  recollect. 
Afterwards  I  was  Judge  of  First  Instance,  about  the  years  1843  or 
1844,  I  don't  recollect  exactly  ;  afterwards  I  was  Constitutional  Al- 
calde in  the  year  1848.  I  held  all  these  offices  in  La  Paz,  in  Lower 
California. 

Question  5. — Are  you  acquainted  with  the  steps  pursued  by  indi- 
viduals for  registering  the  discovery  of  new  mines  and  denouncing 
such  as  are  abandoned,  and  of  obtaining  title  to  and  possession  of  the 
same  ? 


134 

Answer  5. — I  have  some  knowledge  of  these  matters. 

Question  6. — How  was  that  knowledge  acquired  J 

Answer  6. — In  the  first  place  I  acquired  that  knowledge  from  a 
residence  of  twenty  years  and  more  in  that  country,  and  from  seeing 
that  the  Judges  took  cognizance  of  such  matters. 

Question  7. — While  you  were  Judge  of  First  Instance,  or  Justice 
of  the  Peace,  were  any  proceedings  had  before  you  in  the  registering 
or  denouncement  of  mines  ? 

Answer  7. — There  was  one  case  before  me  while  I  was  Judge  of 
First  Instance.  There  was  a  Spaniard  there  named  Antonio  Rufo, 
who  discovered  a  vein  in  the  hill  called  San  Juan,  and  he  presented  a 
writing  to  me  denouncing  the  same,  and  declaring  his  intention  of 
working  it.  I  conceded  him  leave  to  do  so  according  to  the  mining 
ordinance,  conceding  him  the  necessary  time,  and  afterwards,  when 
Rufo  had  dug  what  is  called  the  "  Pozo  de  posesion"  I  went  and 
gave  him  possession  of  the  mine  according  to  the  mining  ordinance. 
I  have  no  recollection  of  any  other  case  in  which  I  was  personally  con- 
cerned. I  never  was  present  at  any  other,  but  I  know  that  the  judges 
gave  possession  of  all  mine3  which  were  denounced  or  registered — that 
is,  the  highest  civil  judge. 

Question  8. — Did  there  ever  exist,  to  your  knowledge,  in  Lower 
California  any  tribunal,  court,  or  officer,  exercising  special  jurisdiction 
in  matter  relating  to  the  registry  or  denouncement  of  mines  ? 

Answer  8. — I  never  have  known  of  any.  The  first  civil  judicial 
authority  had  jurisdiction  over  mining  matters.  Sometimes  the  Judge 
of  First  Instance,  sometimes  the  Alcalde,  but  always  the  first  local 
judicial  authority. 

Question  9. — If  there  had  existed,  in  Lower  California,  in  the  years 
1843-44-45-46,  any  such  special  tribunal,  court,  or  officer,  as  is 
spoken  of  in  the  preceding  question,  would  you  have  known  the  fact 
of  its  existence  ? 

Answer  9. — Such  could  not  have  existed  without  my  knowing  it, 
because  I  was  residing  at  La  Paz,  the  capital  of -Lower  California. 

FRANCISCO  VILLEGASS. 

Subscribed  and  sworn  to  before  me,  this  13  April,  1857. 

cutler  McAllister, 

U.  S.  Commissioner. 

Endorsed  :  Filed  May  4, 1857, 

JOHN  A.  MONROE,  Clerk, 
by  W.  H.  Cheveus,  Deputy. 


135 

DEPOSITION    OF   JOHN    P.    BRODIE. 

UNITED  STATES  DISTRICT  COURT, 

NORTHERN   DISTRICT  OF  CALIFORNIA. 

San  Francisco,  April  4th,  1857. 
On  this  day,  before  Cutler  McAllister,  a  Commissioner  of  the  United 
States  for  the  northern  district  of  California,  duly  authorized  to  ad- 
minister oaths,  &c,  &c,  came  John  P.  Brodie,  a  witness  produced  on 
behalf  of  the  claimants,  in  case  No.  424,  being  an  appeal  from  the 
Board  of  Commissioners  to  ascertain  and  settle  the  private  land  claims 
in  the  State  of  California,  in  case  366  on  the  docket  of  the  said  Board 
of  Commissioners,  and  was  duly  sworn  and  testified  as  follows  : 

Present  : — A.  C.  Peachy,  Esq.,  for  claimant,  and  U.  S.  District 
Attorney. 

Questions  by  Attorney  for  Claimant. 

Question  1. — What  is  your  name,  age,  place  of  residence,  and  of 
what  country  are  you  a  native  ? 

Answer  1. — John  P.  Brodie  ;  50  years  of  age  ;  I  reside  at  present 
in  Stockton,  San  Joaquin  county  ;  I  am  a  native  of  Scotland. 

Question  2. — Have  you  resided  at  any  time  in  the  Mexican  Repub- 
lic ;  if  yea,  state  in  what  parts  and  how  long  in  each  ? 

Answer  2. — I  came  to  Mexico  first  in  the  year  1824.  I  resided  in 
the  City  of  Mexico  until  1828,  with  the  exception  of  a  few  months  on 
the  coast ;  from  1828  to  1832, 1  resided  in  the  City  of  Guadalajara, 
in  the  State  of  Jalisco,  and  from  1832  to  1854  I  resided  in  the  State 
of  Sonora,  with  the  exception  of  about  8  months  in  the  year  1850,  in 
which  I  went  to  Europe,  and  during  that  time  I  made  a  visit  to  San 
Francisco ;  from  1854  to  ths  present  time,  I  have  lived  in  California. 

Question  3. — Are  you  acquainted  with  the  mode  pursued  by  indi- 
viduals for  registering  the  discovery  of  new  mines,  or  denouncing  such 
as  are  abandoned,  and  of  obtaining  title  to  and  possession  of  the  same  ? 
if  yea,  state  the  extent  of  your  knowledge  on  the  subject,  the  means 
by  which  you  acquired  your  information  what  that  mode  is  in  such 
parts  of  the  Mexican  Republic  as  you  are  acquainted  with. 

(Question  objected  to,  on  the  ground  that  the  laws  which  govern  that 
branch  are  written  laws,  and  it  is  incompetent  to  prove  written  laws  in 
this  manner  ;  also,  because  the  inquiry  seems  to  be  directed  to  the 
mode  of  registering  newly  discovered  mines  and  of  denouncing  old 
ones  not  in  the  territory  of  California,  but  in  some  of  the  States  of 
Mexico.) 


136 

Answer  3. — I  have  had  some  practice  and  acquired  some  knowledge 
in  the  matter  during  my  residence  in  Mexico.  The  first  time  I  had 
anything  to  do  with  mines  was  in  Temascultepec,  about  30  leagues  to 
the  south-west  of  the  City  of  Mexico,  in  the  State  of  Mexico.  About 
1826  or  1827,  1  was  one  of  twelve  who  formed  a  company  to  work  a 
mine  in  that  district.  The  mine  was  denounced  by  one  of  our  compa- 
ny ;  the  denouncement  was  made  before  "  Juez  de  Letras"  which 
office  is  the  same  as  Judge  of  First  Instance,  and  possession  was  given 
to  him  also  by  the  same  judge.  This  was  a  silver  mine.  I  went 
down  to  Temascultepec  at  the  time  possession  was  given.  I  was  pre- 
sent when  possession  was  given.  What  was  required  by  the  Mexican 
law  to  give  the  possession  of  an  old  mine,  was  to  have  one  of  the 
u  chambers"  cleaned  out  and  in  working  condition  ;  people  actually 
working  in  it.  This  mine  was  shortly  after  abandoned  by  us.  I  had 
nothing  to  do  with  mining  after  that  until  the  year  1832,  in  Sonora. 
I  was  there  engaged  in  mining  from  the  year  1832  to  the  year  1838. 
When  I  engaged  in  that  mining  in  Sonora,  my  partner  Ignacio  Perez 
was  already  in  possession,  and  possession  had  been  given  to  him  a  few 
months  previous  to  my  going  there.  Possession  had  been  given  him 
by  the  Alcalde  of  Arispe,  which  was  then  the  capital  of  Sonora, 
acting  as  Judge  of  First  Instance.  Among  the  papers  and  documents 
belonging  to  the  negotiation  that  we  were  engaged  in,  I  had  in  my  pos- 
session the  title  papers  to  the  mine,  containing  the  denouncement  and 
the  certificate  that  possession  had  been  given.  The  same  Alcalde  who 
had  given  possession  was  there  two  or  three  years  afterwards  as  over- 
seer to  the  mine  under  my  orders.  I  have  also  drawn  up  the  papers 
denouncing  and  registering  mines,  and  petitions  for  possession,  for 
other  people.  I  have  presented  them  to  the  Judge  of  First  Instance. 
I  have  been  present  also  when  possession  was  given,  on  two  or  three 
occasions  perhaps.  The  custom  is,  when  a  new  mine  is  discovered,  or 
an  old  mine  is  going  to  be  worked,  for  the  person  who  is  going  to  claim 
it  to  file  a  notice  with  the  Judge  of  First  Instance,  or  with  an  Alcalde 
where  there  is  no  judge,  of  his  intention  to  work  or  claim  the  mine  ; 
then,  after  a  certain  time,  given  for  the  purpose,  in  new  mines,  of  open- 
ing it — in  old  ones,  of  cleaning  out  the  f chamber  ;  after  the  expi- 
ration of  that  time,  the  claimant  makes  a  petition  to  the  Judge  of  First 
Instance,  or  Alcalde,  the  same  officer  with  whom  he  has  filed  his  no- 
tice, that  possession  should  be  given  him,  who  then  goes  in  person,  and 
measures  off  his  amount  of  land,  and  puts  him  in  possession.  If  it  is 
one  individual  and  an  old  district,  the  land  measured  off  is  two  hundred 
varas  in  the  length  of  the  vein;  the  same  in  width,  I  believe.  When 
it  is  a  company  who  petition,  or  when  the  mine  is  the  first  discovered 
in  a  new  district,  the  extent  measured  out  is  more,  but  I  forget  exact- 
ly how  much  more  is  measured  off.  The  mode  described  above  is  the 
same  that  I  have  known  in  such  parts  of  Mexico  where  I  have  been, 


137 

and  the  proceedings  were  always  had  before  the  Judge  of  First  In- 
stance, or  Alcalde.  The  experience  that  I  have  stated  with  regard  to 
drawing  up  papers  and  seeing  possession  given,  in  cases  of  other  per- 
sons than  myself,  was  subsequent  to  the  year  1838  ;  it  extended  over 
four,  five  or  six  years  afterwards. 

Question  4. — In  what  capacity  did  you' attend  to  the  drawing  up  of 
papers,  &c,  for  other  persons  ? 

Answer  4. — Generally  in  a  friendly  capacity.  I  may  have  got 
paid  for  it,  but  I  do  not  recollect,  the  same  as  with  regard  to  other 
business  I  used  to  transact  in  the  courts  for  other  people. 

Question  5. — Please  to  state  whether,  in  any  part  of  the  Mexican 
Republic,  you  have  known  of  any  other  method  of  registering  or  de- 
nouncing mines  than  the  one  you  have  already  stated. 

(Question  objected  to  on  the  grounds  of  objection  mentioned  before.) 

Answer  5. — No,  I  never  have. 

Question  6. — Please  to  state  whether,  to  your^knowledge,  there  has 
existed  in  the  State  or  Department  of  Sonora,  during  the  time  you  re- 
sided there,  any  officer  or  court  specially  charge'd  with  jurisdiction 
over  matters  relating  to  mines. 

(Question  objected  to  as  being  irrelevant.) 

Answer  6. — No,  sir.  I  know  positively  that  no  such  officer  or  court 
existed  with  special  jurisdiction  over  such  matters.  All  proceedings 
of  this  nature  were  had  before  the  Judge  of  First  Instance  or  Alcalde. 
I  say  this  with  reference  to  the  whole  time  during  which  I  resided  in 
Sonora. 

Cross  Fxamination — Questions  by  U.  S.  District  Attorney. 

Question  1. — Do  you  know  if  there  is  a  code  of  mining  laws  exist- 
ing throughout  the  Mexican  Republic  ? 

Answer  1. — Yes,  there  is  the  old  Spanish  code,  called  the  "  Orde. 
nanzas  de  Mineria"  which  existed  in  Mexico  prior  to  her  indepen- 
dence. 

Question  2. — Do  you  know  whether  those  ordinances  describe  the 
mode  of  denouncing  or  giving  possession  &c,  of  mines  ? 

(The  two  preceding  questions  objected  to,  on  the  ground  that  they 
ask  the  witness  concerning  the  existence  and  contents  of  written  laws.) 

Answer  2. — They  describe  it  and  very  minutely. 
Question  3. — Do  you  know  whether  the  officers  you  have  named,  to 
16 


138 

wit,  the  Judge  of  First  Instance,  and  the  Alcalde,  if  there  be  no  Judge 
of  First  Instance,  derive  their  authority  from  any  law  of  the  Supreme 
Government  of  Mexico,  or  from  laws  of  the  respective  States  where 
they  may  reside  ? 

(Question  objected  to,  on  the  ground  that  it  is  asking  the  opinion  of 
the  witness  with  regard  to  written  laws.) 

Answer  3. — I  know  that  by  the  decree  of  the  Mexican  Congress, 
passed  in  the  year  1824,  perhaps  shortly  after,  the  Tribunal  of  mines, 
which  till  then  had  jurisdiction  in  all  mining  matters,  was  abolished, 
and  the  jurisdiction  transferred  to  the  ordinary  Courts.  There  was  no 
special  tribunal  after  that  for  mining  matters.  I  believe  there  are  no 
State  Laws  in  reference  to  mining  affairs. 

Question  4. — In  your  last  answer  do  you  allude  to  the  decree  of 
the  Supreme  Government  of  Mexico,  by  which  the  Royal  Tribunal 
General  of  Mines  was  abolished  ? 

Answer  4. — I  alluded  to  the  decree  which  abolished  the  tribunal 
having  special  jurisdiction  in  mining  affairs. 

Question  5. — Who  was  President  of  the  Republic  of  Mexico  at  the 
time  of  the  decree  you  allude  to  was  made  ? 

Answer  5. — I  believe  it  must  have  been  Guadalupe  Victoria. 

Question  6. — Are  you  perfectly  certain  that  there  were  not  special 
local  tribunals  in  some  of  the  States  in  Mexico,  having  jurisdiction  in 
the  registry  and  denouncement  of  mines,  subsequent  to  the  date  of 
that  decree  ? 

Answer  6. — I  do  not  know  that  any  such  tribunals  existed  subse- 
quent to  that  time.  I  know  that  either  an  order  or  a  law  was  issued 
by  the  Mexican  Government  for  the  establishment  of  such  tribunals  in 
the  Department  of  Sonora — none  were  established  ;  but  whether  they 
were  or  not  in  other  States,  I  don't  know.  I  don't  recollect  when  this 
order  or  law  was  made,  but  it  was  soon  after  the  year  1833. 

Question  7. — At  the  time  that  you  took  possession  of  the  mine,  in 
company  with  others,  in  Temascultepec,  State  of  Mexico,  what  was  the 
extent  of  the  pertenencia  measured  off  to  the  company  ? 

Answer  7. — I  really  do  not  recollect,  but  it  was  more  than  two  hun- 
dred varas. 

Question  8. — State  in  detail  the  whole  process  of  giving  possession 
on  that  occasion. 

Answer  8. — The  officer  went  down  with  us  into  the  chamber  we  had 
cleaned  out,  saw  the  vein  and  the  direction  in  which  it  ran,  and  he 
reckoned  the  inclination  of  it ;  then  he  measured  off  the  pertenencia 
on  the  ground  and  drove  stakes  in  the  boundaries  ;  he  also  performed  a 
ceremony  by  passing  a  handfull  of  the  ore  to  the  person  who  had  taken 
possesion. 


139 

Question  9. — On  the  subsequent  occasions  mentioned  by  you  in 
your  direct  examination,  was  the  same  course  pursued  ?  and  if  not, 
state  any  particular  in  which  it  differed. 

Answer  9. — On  one  occasion,  in  giving  possession  of  the  mine  San 
Pedro,  an  old  mine,  possession  was  given  to  Don  Lorenzo  Lopez,  by 
the  Judge  of  First  Instance  of  Arispe,  simply  by  going  upon  the 
ground,  conversing  a  little,  and  drawing  up  the  papers.  On  other  oc- 
casions I  have  seen  the  same  ceremony  more  or  less,  generally  less. 

Question  10. — Do  you  know  whether,  on  the  occasion  last  referred 
to,  the  old  pertenencia  was  continued  as  that  of  the  denouncer,  or  a 
new  one  given  ? 

Answer  10. — The  San  Pedro  mine  was  in  a  solitary  district,  with 
no  neighbors  to  interfere. 

Question  11. — Were  you  ever  present  at  the  registry  of  a  newly 
discovered  mine  ? 

Answer  11. — Yes,  I  have  drawn  up  the  paper  myself  and  presented  it. 

Question  11 1-2. — State  what  the  proceeding  was  in  such  a  case. 

Answer  11  1-2. — To  fulfil  the  letter  of  the  law  was  merely  to  file 
the  paper  with  the  judge  or  alcalde. 

Question  12. — Did  the  Alcalde  do  any  more  than  file  the  paper  ? 

Answer  12. — They  did  not ;  that  is,  in  my  presence ;  it  was  done  of 
course  ;  it  is  always  done. 

Question  13. — Did  he  make  no  entry  of  any  kind  ? 

Answer  13. — I  don't  know  whether  he  did  or  not. 

Question  14. — Did  he  make  no  note  of  the  exact  time  of  day  at 
which  the  applicant  presented  himself  with  his  statement  ? 

Answer  14. — I  do  not  know  if  he  did.  Things  were  done  down  in 
Sonora,  and  under  the  Mexican  Government,  very  loosely. 

Question  15. — In  giving  possession  of  a  new  mine,  did  not  the 
Judge  or  Alcalde  enter  and  examine  the  trial  pit,  and  the  inclination 
of  the  vein  ? 

Answer  15. — No,  sir.  To  fulfil  the  letter  of  the  law,  a  pit  ten  varas 
must  be-  dug,  but  this  pit  is  usually  dug  anywhere  near  the  vein,  and 
is  very  often  filled  up  again  as  of  no  use. 

Question  16. — In  measuring  off  the  pert  nmcia  was  not  its  length 
dependant  on  the  dip  or  inclination  of  the  vein  ? 

Answer  16. — The  length  of  the  pertenencia  is  not  made  with  refer- 
ence to  the  inclination  of  the  vein. 

Question  17. — What  was  the  object  then,  in  ascertaining  the  incli- 
nation of  the  vein  in  giving  possession  ? 

Answer  17. — I  suppose  to  comply  with  the  law,  which  particularly 
describes  that  it  should  be  observed. 

Question  18. — Are  you  sufficiently  acquainted  with  the  general  cus- 
tom prevailing  through  the  mining  regions  of  the  Mexican  Republic,  as 
to  the  whole  mode  of  procedure  and  registering,  denouncing  and  giv- 


140 

ing  possession  of  mines,  as  to  state  with  confidence  that  you  know  what 
that  general  custom  is,  or  have  you  heretofore  spoken  of  individual 
cases  coming  under  your  personal  observation  ? 

Answer  18. — I  think  I  have  sufficient  knowledge  of  the  customs  as 
to  enable  me  to  state  with  confidence  what  they  are  in  the  State  of 
Sonora.  I  only  refer  to  these  particular  customs  so  as  to  show  the 
general  custom  prevailing  there.  Things  were  done  very  loosely  in 
the  courts  in  Sonora. 

Question  19. — Have  you  any  knowledge  of  the  general  custom  pre- 
vailing in  the  registry  and  denouncement  of  mines  in  Upper  California  ? 

Answer  19.— I  have  none.  JOHN  P.  BROIE. 

Subscribed  and  sworn  to  before  me  this  4th  April,  1857. 

cutler  McAllister, 

U.  S.  Commissioner. 
Endorsed :  Filed,  May  4,  1857, 

JOHN  A.  MONROE,  Clerk, 
by  W.  H.  Cheevers,  Deputy. 


CROSS  PETITION  ON  APPEAL. 
IN  THE  UNITED   STATES  DISTRICT  COURT, 

NORTHERN   DISTRICT   OF   CALIFORNIA. 
No.  420. 
Andres  Castillero,  Appellant,  ) 

vs.  [        Transcript  No.  366. 

The  United  States,  Appellees.  ) 

Lands  of  New  Almaden,   2   Square  Leagues,   Santa    Clara 

County. 

Your  petitioner,  Andre's  Castillero,  appealing  from  so  much  of  the 
decision  of  the  Honorable  Board  of  Commissioners,  as  rejects  his  claim 
to  a  confirmation  of  two  square  leagues  of  land  granted  to  him  by  the 
Mexican  Government,  respectfully  shows  to  this  Honorable  Court : 

That  in  the  year  1845,  your  petitioner  discovered  a  mine  of  Cina- 
bar  in  the  then  jurisdiction  of  San  Jose",  and  in  the  now  county  of 
Santa  Clara,  in  this  State  ;  that  having  formed  a  company  for  the  pur- 
pose of  working  said  mine,  he  made  due  registry  of  said  discovery, 
and,  on  the  30th  day  of  December,  1845,  received,  in  due  form,  the 
judicial  possession  thereof,  with  the  pertenencias  to  the  extent  of  three 
thousand  varas  in  all  directions  ;  that  his  said  mining  right  and  pos- 
session was  soon  after  submitted  to  the  "  Junta  de  Fomento  y  Admin- 
istrate de  Mineria,"  of  Mexico,  and  duly  recommended  by  that  body 


141 

to  the  Supreme  Executive  of  the  Republic,  who,  on  the  20th  of  May, 
1846,  approved  said  mining  possession  in  the  terms  in  which  it  had 
been  given  by  the  local  authorities  of  California,  and  at  the  same  time 
granted  to  your  petitioner,  in  colonization  and  for  the  use  of  said  mine, 
two  square  leagues  of  land  on  said  mining  possession,  the  document 
of  title  for  which  land  so  granted  was  signed  and  delivered  to  your 
petitioner  on  the  23d  of  May,  1846  ;  that  your  petitioner,  and  those 
associated  with  him  and  holding  under  him,  have  been  in  possession  of 
said  mine  and  tract  of  land  ever  since  the  year  1845,  and  have  ex- 
pended large  sums  of  money  in  improvements  and  costly  structures, 
all  of  which  is  more  particularly  set  fort  in  the  petition  and  accompa- 
nying documents,  and  other  evidence,  in  the  transcript  from  the  Board 
of  Commissioners  filed  in  this  case. 

Your  petitioner  further  shows,  that  on  the  30th  day  of  September, 
1852,  he  presented  his  claim  for  said  mine,  mining  possession,  and  tract 
of  land,  before  the  Board  of  United  States  Land  Commissioners,  ap- 
pointed under  the  Act  of  March  3d,  1851,  to  ascertain  and  settle  pri- 
vate land  claims  in  California,  and  that  the  said  Board,  on  the  8th  day 
of  January,  1856,  decided  upon  the  validity  of  said  claim,  and  con- 
firmed so  much  of  said  claim  as  related  to  the  mine  of  New  Almaden, 
together  with  the  right  of  enjoying  the  privileges  as  mine-owner  under 
the  Mexican  law ;  but  rejected  it  as  to  all  other  rights,  properties  and 
interests. 

Your  petitioner  further  shows,  that  the  mine  and  lands  so  claimed 
by  him  are  situate  in  the  Northern  District  of  California,  and  within 
the  jurisdiction  of  this  Court ;  that  the  transcript  of  the  Report  of  the 
said  Board  of  Commissioners  on  the  claim  so  presented  to  them,  was 
filed  with  the  Clerk  of  this  District  on  the  26th  day  of  February,  A. 
D.  1856  ;  that  on  the  26th  day  of  March,  1856,  your  petitioner  filed 
with  said  Clerk  a  notice  of  intention  to  prosecute  an  appeal  from  so 
much  of  the  decision  of  said  Board  as  rejects  any  of  the  rights,  pro- 
perty and  interests  of  your  petitioner,  set  out  and  claimed  in  his  peti- 
tion presented  to  said  Board. 

And  your  petitioner  prays  this  honorable  Court  to  review  the  de- 
cision of  said  Board  of  Commissioners,  to  reverse  so  much  of  it  as  re- 
jects any  part  of  his  claim,  and  confirm  his  title  to  all  the  rights,  pro- 
perties and  interests  claimed  by  him  in  his  said  petition  to  the  Board 
of  Commissioners. 

And  your  petitioners  will  ever  pray,  &c. 

HALLECK,  PEACHY  &  BILLINGS, 

Attorneys  for  Appellant. 

Endorsed  :  Filed  May  4,  1857, 

JOHN  A.  MONROE,  Clerk, 
by  W.  H.  Ciievers,  Deputy. 


142 

ANSWER  OF  APPELLEE. 

IN    THE    UNITED    STATES    DISTRICT    COURT 

FOR  THE  NORTHERN  DISTRICT  OF  CALIFORNIA. 

The  United  States,  Appellants,  ) 

vs.  No.  420. 

Andres  Castillero,  Appellee,     ) 

Andres  Castillero,  Appellee,  appears  by  his  attorneys,  and,  for  an- 
swer to  the  petition  of  the  United  States  filed  herein,  says  : 

That  his  titles  to  the  mine  and  lands  of  New  Almaden,  as  set  forth 
and  described  in  his  petition  to  the  Board  of  Commissioners,  and  in 
the  documentary  and  other  evidence  filed  in  this  case,  are  good  and 
valid  titles  ^  that  the  land,  property  and  interest  so  claimed  by  him 
are  situate  in  the  Northern  District  of  California,  and  within  the  juris- 
diction of  this  Court. 

And  he  prays  this  honorable  Court  to  affirm  so  much  of  the  decision 
of  the  Commissioners  as  confirms  his  said  claim,  and  to  decree  his  titles 
to  be  valid. 

HALLECK,  PEACHY  &  BILLINGS, 

Attorneys  for  Appellee. 

Endorsed  :  Filed,  May  7,  1857. 

JOHN  A.  MONROE,  Clerk, 
by  W.  H.  Chevers. 


NOTICE. 


DISTRICT    COURT   OF   THE  UNITED    STATES  FOR  THE 
NORTHERN  DISTRICT  OF   CALIFORNIA. 

The  United  States  ) 

vs.  [      No.  420. 

Andres  CastIllero.  ) 

Gentlemen  : — 

You  will  please  take  notice  that  at  the  examination  of  George  M. 
Yoell,  James  W.  Weekes,  and  Antonio  Maria  Pico,  to  take  place  at 
12  o'clock  M.,  of  this  day,  in  pursuance  of  notice  heretofore  given, 
and  also  on  the  hearing  of  this  cause,  you  are  required  to  produce  the 
originals  of  the  following  papers,  to  wit : 


143 

1st.  A  petition  dated  Pueblo  de  San  Jose,  19th  of  January,  1848, 
addressed  to  the  Justice  of  the  Paece  (Juez  de  Paz)  by  Alexander 
Forbes  in  his  own  name  and  that  of  his  associates,  whom  he  calls  own- 
ers of  the  mine  called  New  Almaden,  and  in  the  name  of  the  company 
formed  for  the  working  of  said  mine,  praying  him,  the  said  Justice, 
with  assisting  witnesses,  to  inspect  the  works  of  said  mine  and  ascer- 
tain the  direction  and  inclination  of  the  vein  of  said  mine,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  reforming  and  correcting  the  terms  of  the  former  act  of  pos- 
session and  correcting  any  mistake  which  might  appear  in  it,  and  par- 
sicularly  of  deciding  upon  the  augmentation  of  pertenencias  which  the 
owners  of  said  mine  ought  to  possess,  and  he  who  works  it  for  himself 
and  as  their  representative,  and  marking  out  the  square  correspond- 
ing to  said  pertenencias ;  which  original  paper  is  in  the  Spanish  lan- 
guage. 

2d.  The  original  order  or  decree  of  James  W.  Weekes,  Alcalde, 
made  on  the  21st  of  January,  1848,  upon  the  said  petition,  declaring 
the  parties  interested  to  have  the  right  to  four  consecutive  pertenen- 
cias along  the  direction  of  the  vein,  and  also  the  right  to  have  a  connec- 
tion of  the  stakes — that  is,  from  the  mouth  of  the  mine  50  varas  to- 
wards the  southwest,  and  150  varas  towards  the  northeast,  and  for  the 
length  of  the  four  pertenencias  100  varas  towards  the  southeast,  and 
700  varas  towards  the  northwest; — which  paper  also  is  in  the  Spanish 
language. 

3d.  The  map  or  plan  of  the  four  pertenencias  spoken  of  in  said 
decree,  showing  the  position  of  the  mouth  of  the  mine  and  the  direc- 
tion and  length  of  the  lines  including  said  pertenencias. 

And  upon  your  failure  to  produce  the  said  original  papers,  evidence 
will  be  given  in  behalf  of  the  United  States  of  their  contents. 


San  Francisco,  June  24th,  1857. 


WM.  BLANDING, 

District  Att'y. 


To  Messrs.  Halleck,  Peachy  &  Billings,  Attorneys  for  Andres  Cas- 

tillero. 
Endorsed  :  


Service  of  the  within  notice  acknowledged,  11  1-2  o'clock,  A.  M., 
Jund  24, 1857. 

HALLECK,  PEACHY  &  BILLINGS, 

Attorneys  for  Castillero. 


144 

DEPOSITION   OF   GEORGE  M.   YOELL. 

UNITED  STATES  DISTRICT  COURT. 

The  United  States  1 

vs.  > 

Andres  Castillero.  ) 

San  Francisco,  June  24th,  1857. 
On  this  day  at  12  o'clock  M.,  before  J.  Edgar  Grymes,  a  Special 
Commissioner  and  Referee  of  the  United  States  for  the  Northern  Dis- 
trict of  California,  duly  authorized  to  administer  oaths,  &c.  &c,  came 
George  M.  Yoell,  a  witness  produced  on  behalf  of  the  United  States, 
in  case  No.  420,  being  an  appeal  from  the  Board  of  Commissioners  to 
ascertain  and  settle  the  private  land  claims  in  the  State  of  California, 
in  case  No.  366  on  the  docket  of  the  said  Board  of  Commissioners,  and 
was  duly  sworn  and  testified  as  follows. 

Present. — H.  W.  Halleck,  Esq.,  of  counsel  for  claimants,  and  the 
U.  S.  District  Attorney. 

Questions  by  U.  S.  District  Attorney. 

Question  1. — What  is  your  name,  age  and  place  of  residence  ? 

Answer  1. — My  name  is  George  M.  Yoell,  34  years  old,  and  I  re- 
side in  San  Josd,  Santa  Clara  Connty. 

Question  2. — Do  you  hold  any  office  in  the  county  of  Santa  Clara : 
if  so,  what  ? 

Answer  2. — I  am  deputy  Recorder  of  the  county. 

Question  3. — Please  examine  the  paper  now  shown  to  you,  marked 
Exhibit  "  G.  M.  Y  "  purporting  to  be  a  copy  of  an  instrument  record- 
ed in  the  office  of  the  County  Recorder  of  Santa  Clara  county,  and 
say,  if  you  know  in  whose  handwriting  this  paper  is.  (Exhibit  attach- 
el  to  this  deposition.) 

(Question  objected  to  as  irrelevant  and  incompetent,  and  the  paper 
referred  to  in  the  question  objected  to  as  evidence  on  the  ground  of 
its  being  incompetent,  it  purporting  to  be  a  copy  of  an  original  which 
is  not  produced  or  its  loss  accounted  for.) 

Answer  3. — This  paper  is  in  my  handwriting,  but  the  certificate  is 
in  the  Recorder's. 

Question  4. — From  what  was  this  copy  made  ? 


145 

Answer  4. — It  is  made  from  Book  No.  2,  Records  of  Santa  Clara 
County. 

Question  5. — Has  any  subpoena  issued  in  this  case  been  served  up- 
on you,  or  upon  S.  A.  Clark,  County  Recorder  of  Santa  Clara  Coun- 
ty, requiring  him  or  yourself  to  bring  that  book  and  produce  it  on  this 
your  examination  ? 

(Question  objected  to  as  incompetent.) 

Ansiver  5. — Yes  sir,  on  myself  and  Mr.  Clark  likewise. 

Question  6. — Have  you  that  Book  with  you,  and  will  you  now  ex- 
hibit it? 

Answer  6. — I  have  not  the  Book.     I  did  not  bring  it. 

Question  7. — Why  did  you  not  bring  it  ? 

Answer  7. — Mr.  Clark  refused  to  allow  the  book  to  go  out  of  the 
office. 

Question  8 — For  what  reasons  ? 

Answer  8. — That  he,  as  the  Recorder,  had  no  right  to  let  the  Book 
go  out  of  the  office  or  out  of  the  County  ;  that  a  certified  copy  would 
do  just  as  well,  the  Book  being  one  of  the  records  of  his  office. 

Question  9. — What  does  that  Book  contain  ? 

Answer  9. — It  contains  grants,  petitions,  concessions,  denounce- 
ments, in  the  Spanish  language,  aud  various  other  old  records  of  the 
former  Alcaldes. 

Questio?i  10. — Is  it  a  book  written  in  the  office  of  the  County  Re- 
corder, or  one  which  was  transferred  to  that  office  from  the  Alcalde's 
office  ? 

Ansiver  10. — It  was  transferred  from  the  Alcalde's  office  to  the  Re- 
corder's of  Santa  Clara  County. 

Question  11. — Is  the  copy  marked  Exhibhit  "  G.  M.  Y.,"  a  cor- 
rect copy  from  that  book  ;  if  yea,  how  do  you  know  it  is  so  ? 

Answer  11. — This  paper  is  a  full,  true  and  correct  copy  from  the 
Book  No.  2,  Records  of  Santa  Clara  County,  and  made  by  myself. 

(Question  and  answer  objected  to  as  incompetent  to  prove  the  pa- 
per.) 

Question  12. — In  whose  handwriting  is  the  entry  in  that  Book  from 
which  you  made  this  copy  ? 

Answer  12. — It  is  in  the  handwriting  of  James  W.  Weeks,  the 
former  Alcalde. 

Question  13. — In  whose  handwriting  is  the  signature  to  the  instru- 
ment in  that  Book  ? 

Ansiver. — James  W.  Weeks,  Alcalde. 

Question  14. — Is  the  original  from  which  the  entry  was  made  in 

17 


146 

that  book  to  be  found  in  the  office  of  the  County  Recorder's  office  in 
Santa  Clara  County  ? 

Answer  14. — It  is  not. 

Question  15. — How  do  you  know  it  is  not  ? 

Answer  15. — I  have  made  a  thorough  and  diligent  search  of  all  the 
records  and  did  not  find  it. 

Question  16. — Do  you  know  whether  the  instrument  written  in  that 
Book,  from  which  you  have  made  the  copy,  Exhibit  "  G.  M.  Y.,r'  is 
itself  the  original,  or  whether  it  is  a  copy  from  some  other  paper  ? 

Answer  16. — To  the  best  of  my  knowledge  it  is  the  original. 

Question  17. — Is  the  petition  or  request  referred  to  in  Exhibit  "  G. 
M.  Y.,"  entered  in  that  Book,  or  any  other  book  in  the  office  of  the 
Recorder  of  Santa  Clara  County ;  or  is  that  petition  or  request,  or 
any  copy  of  it,  to  be  found  in  the  office  of  the  County  Recorder  ? 

Ansiver  17. — There  is  not  on  record  anything  of  the  kind  that  we 
can  find ;  I  searched  for  it.  We  did  not  find  the  petition  alluded  to 
in  that  paper.  • 

Question  18. — Is  there  any  map  or  plan  accompanying  the  instru- 
ment from  which  you  copied  Exhibit  "  G.  M.  Y.?" 

Answer  18, — There  is  none. 

Question  19. — Is  there  in  the  office  of  the  County  Recorder  any 
map  or  plan  appearing  to  be  connected  with  that  instrument,  or  any 
copy  of  such  map  or  plan  ? 

Answer  19.— Not  that  I  know  of. 

Question  20. — If  there  were  any  such,  would  you  know  it  ? 

Answer  20. — I  should. 

Question  21. — Does  that  Book  No.  2  contain  only  the  orders  or  de- 
crees of  Alcaldes,  or  does  it  also  in  other  cases  than  this  contain  the 
petitions  or  proceedings  on  wrhich  such  decrees  or  orders  were 
founded  ? 

(All  parole  evidence  on  subject  of  contents  of  that  Book  objected 
to.) 

Answer  21. — It  contains,  generally,  denouncements,  and  almost  in 
every  case  accompanied  by  a  petition,  together  with  the  grants  and 
concessions  of  the  former  Alcaldes. 

Questio?i  22. — Please  examine  the  paper  now  shown  to  you,  mark- 
ed Exhibit  "  E.  G.,"  and  purporting  to  be  copy  of  an  instrument  re- 
corded in  the  office  of  the  Recorders  of  Santa  Clara  County,  in  Book 
3  of  Deeds,  page  174,  and  say  whether  or  not  it  is  a  true  copy,  and 
how  you  know  it  to  be  so  ?     This  paper  attached  to  your  deposition. 

(Question  objected  to  as  incompetent  to  prove  the  genuineness  of 
the  document  by  parole.) 


147 

Answer  22. — This  is  a  true  copy,  made  by  myself  and  signed  by 
myself  as  deputy  Recorder  of  Santa  Clara  County. 


(Answer  objected  to  as  incompetent  and  irrelevant  testimony, 


Question  23. — Please  examine  paper  marked  Exhibit  "  H.  L.," 
purporting  to  be  a  copy  of  an  instrument  recorded  in  the  office  of  the 
County  Recorder  of  Santa  Clara  County  in  Book  "  G  "  of  Dee'ds,  page 
257  to  267,  which  paper  is  hereto  attached,  and  say  whether  or  not  it 
is  a  true  copy  of  an  instrument  recorded  in  that  office,  and  how  you 
know  it  to  be  so. 

(Question  objected  to  as  incompetent,  and  the  document  as  irrelevant 
and  incompetent  testimony.) 

Answer  23. — I  made  this  copy  myself  in  the  Recorder's  office.  It 
is  a  full,  true,  and  correct  copy,  certified  and  signed  by  myself  as  Dep- 
uty Recorder.     The  Recorder  and  myself  compared  it. 

Cross-Examination.    ' 

Question  24. — How  do  you  know  that  Book,  referred  to  as  No.  2, 
was  tranferred  from  the  Alcalde's  office  to  the  Recorder's  office  ? 

Answer  24. — I  have  no  personal  knowledge  of  it ;  I  only  know  it 
from  their  being  used  in  the  Recorder's  office  as  coming  from  the  Al 
calde's  office. 

GEO.  M.  YOELL. 

Sworn  to  and  subscribed  before  me,  June  24,  1857. 

J.  EDGAR  GRYMES, 

Special  Commissioner. 


EXHIBIT  "  G.  M.  Y." 

CONCESSION — WEEKS,   ALCALDE,   TO   LAQUIN — COPY. 
JUSGADO   DEL   PUEBLO   DE    SAN   JOSE   De    GUADALUPE  .* 

De  conformidad  con  el  pedimento  que  antecede  yo  al  infrascrito 
Alcalde  1°.  de  esta  Jurisdiccion  con  dos  testigos  de  asistencia  a  falta 
de  Escribano  publico  pase  hoy  veinte  uno  de  Enero  de  mil  ochocientos 
cuarente  y  ocho,  a  la  espresada  Mina  de  Nuevo  Almaden  :  que  no  hu- 
viendo  facultativo  del  Districto  nombre  a  Clemente  Laquin.     Minero 


148 

practica  para  examinar  el  estado  de  dicha  mina  lo  que  se  hallo  traba- 
jado  conforme  a  la  ordenanza  de  urineria  siendo  firme  las  respaldas  sus 
planes  y  obras  en  la  mejor  orden  y  tiempo  de  tepatale  u  otra  estorbo, 
de  manera  que  evita  toda  peligro  a  los  operarios ;  y  a  conservar  la  mi- 
na en  buen  estado.  Y  haviendo  el  citado  perito  practicado  las  medi- 
das  y  demas  operaciones  nesesarias  para  determinar  el  rumbo  y  hecha- 
da  de  la  veta  a  su  actual  profundidad  declara  ser  dicha  rumbo  de  Nor 
Oeste  y  Sud  Este,  y  su  Echada  ser  Nordeste  y  que  excede  de  varra 
por  varra ;  esto  es  que  hace  con  el  orizonte  un  angulo  demas  de  cua- 
renta  y  cinco  grados  ;  dando  a  los  interesados  derecho  a  la  cuadra  de 
dos  cientos  varras  segun.  Titulo  VIII,  Articulo  7  de  la  ordenanza. 
Y  considerando  que  se  trabaje  esta  mina  en  compaiiia  concedo  tambien 
el  derecho  que  se  me  pide  de  cuatro  pertenencias  seguidas  sobra  el 
rumbo  de  la  espresada  veta  en  los  planes  de  la  mina  conforme  a  la  or- 
denanza Titulo  XI,  Art0.  2.  Concedo  ademas  derecho  a  la  mejora 
de  Estacas  con  respeto  a  la  variasion  del  rumbo  de  la  veta.  Segun 
Titulo  VIII,  Art0.  II  de  la  ordenanza  ;  y  Esto  en  la  orden  siguiente  : 
Es  decir :  desde  la  boca  de  la  mina  cincuenta  varras  hacia  el  Sur  Oes- 
te y  ciento  cincuenta  varras  acia  el  U.  E.  y  para  la  longitud  de  las 
cuatro  pertenencias.  cien  varra  hacia  el  Sudeste  y  siete  cientos  varras 
hacia  el  Nor  Oeste  sobre  el  mismo  rumbo  de  la  veta  siendo  constante 
el  derecho  y  titulo  de  la  mina  a  la  gracia  de  terreno  concedido  en  lo  ori- 
ginal acto  de  possesion.  Practicadas  estas  diligencias,  ordene  el  citado 
perito  procedera  imediatamente  a  sacar  las  espresadas  medidas  y  fijar 
en  los  estremos  de  los  cuatro  pertenencias  y  en  cada  lado  de  la  cuadra 
de  dos  cientos  varras.  los  Estacas  conforme  a  la  Ordenanza.  Todo  lo 
cual  se  hizo  en  presencia  mia  y  de  los  testigos  de  asistencia  de  lo  que 
doy  fe\ 

JAMES  W.  WEEKS, 

Alcalde. 


Recorder's  Office,  County  of  Santa  Clara, 
California,  March  28th,  A.  D.  1857. 

I  hereby  certify  that  the  foregoing,  on  pages  one  and  two  of  this,  is 
a  full,  true,  and  correct  copy  of  an  instrument  of  record  in  this  office, 
recorded  in  Book  No.  2,  on  pages  41  and  42. 

, x      Given  under  my  hand  and  official  seal,  at  the  city  of  San 

]  seal  [  Jose,  the  day  and  year  last  written. 

< J  S.  A.  CLARK, 

County  Recorder. 


149 
EXHIBIT  "  E.  G."— H.  L.  No.  2. 

DEED — A.    CASTILLERO   TO   FORBES — COPY. 

En  el  Pueblo  de  San  Jose*  Guadalupe  a  los  veinte  y  siete  dias  del 
mes  de  Deoiembre,  del  ano  de  mil  ochocientos  cuarenta  y  sieta,  actu- 
ando  por  receptorio  a  falta  de  escribano  Publico.  Ante  me  James  W. 
Weeks,  Juez  Constitutional  y  testigos  de  asistencia  presente  el  M.  R. 
P.  Fr.  Je.  Ma.del  Refugio  S.  del  Real,  apoderado,  del  Sor.  D.  Andres 
Castillero,  Capitan  de  Caballaria  Permanente,  residente  en  la  ciudad 
de  Mexico,  cuyo  persona  de  dicho  R.  P.  doy  fe  conosco,  y  dijo,  que 
teniendo  legitimo  poder  que  presente  de  dicho  Sor.  Castillero  para  po- 
der  vender  tres  varas  de  la  mina  de  plata  con  ley  de  oro  y  Azogue 
cituado  en  el  rancho  de  Dn.  Jose  Reyes  Bereyeza,  en  Jurisdicion  del 
Pueblo  de  San  Jose  Guadalupe,  del  teritorio  de  la  Alta  California,  en 
nl  segundo  Districto  de  Monterey :  que  con  tal  caracter  por  la  presente 
y  en  la  mas  solemne  forma  que  haya  lugar  en  derecho  otorgo  por  si  y 
a  nombre  de  sus  herederos  y  sucesores,  y  los  que  sus  derechos  repre- 
sentosj,  que  vende  en  venta  real  y  enagenacion  perpetua  al  Sor.  D. 
Alejandro  Forbes,  Consul  de  su  Magistad  Britanica  y  ahora  residente 
en  la  Asienda  de  la  Mina  espresada,  y  en  la  Jurisdiction  de  este  dicho 
Pueblo  de  San  Jose  Guadalupe,  por  el  sus  herederos  y  los  que  sus 
derechos  representen  ;  a  Saber  Tres  Varas  de  los  diez  que  posee,  en 
propiedad  en  la  referida  Mina  de  St\  Clara  que  truvo  el  Sor.  Orto- 
gante  como  discubrador  y  con  tal  caractar,  transfiere  en  el  Sor.  com- 
prador las  esplicadas  tres  varras  con  toda  sus  usos,  aprovochamientos. 
Servidumbres  con  cuanto  mas  de  echo  y  de  derecho  le  toca  y  perteni- 
ese  :  pues  todo  lo  cede  renuncio  y  traspasa  en  el  mensionado  Sor. 
Forbes  y  a  quien  sus  derechos  represente.  Declaro  que  los  repetidos 
tres  varras  se  hayan  libres  de  toda  gravamen,  censo  y  hipoteca  especial 
en  general,  y  asi  se  lo  azegura  por  el  precio  y  cuantia  de  cuatro  mil 
quinientos  pesos,  que  confiesa  tener  resibido  en  moneda  de  plata  comun 
y  corriente  del  cuno  Mejicana  a  toda  su  satisfaccion.  Sobre  lo  cual 
renuncia  la  eception,  de  la  non  numeratia  pecunia  la  ley  nueve  titulo 
primero  Partida  quinta  con  las  cuatro  anos  que  consede  para  las  pru- 
evas  los  queda  por  pasados,  ortogando  por  la  presente  el  mas  firme  y 
eficos  resguardo  que  a  la  seguridad  del  comprador  condusca.  Azegura 
que  el  justo  y  legitimo  precio  de  la  esplicadas  tres  varras  son  las  cuatro 
mil  quinientos  pesos,  que  confiesa  tener  recibidos  pues  no  vale  mas  ni 
havido  quien  tanto  lo  ofresca ;  pero  si  mas  fuera  su  valor  6  con  el 
tiempo  fuere  ecesion  la  bonanza  de  toda  hace  gracia  y  donasion,  jura, 
mera  y  perfecta  y  inre vocable  con  incinuacion  y  renunciasion  de  la  ley 
dos  titulo  primero  libro  diez  de  la  novisima  recopilacion  que  trata ;  de 
los  contratos,  que  hay  lesjion  en  mas  6  menos  de  la  mitad  del  justo 
precio  fijando,  cuatro  anos  para  pedir  su  recision  a  suplemento  al  justo 


150 

/ 

valor,  los  que  da  por  pasados,  y  renuncia  con  la  ley  citada.  Desde 
hoy  para  siempre  se  disapodera,  quita  y  aparta,  de  toda  accion  propie- 
dad  dominio  y  cuasi  posesion  que  puedo  tener  a  las  esplicadas  tres  var- 
ras,  y  toda  la  sede,  renuncia  y  traspasa  en  el  Sor.  comprador  a  quien 
le  represente,  para  que  como  dueno  de  ellos  disponga  a  su  advidrio 
como  de  cosa  suya  adquierida  con  justo  y  logitimo  titulo,  huvil  y  trans- 
lativo  de  dominio  cual  es  la  presente  escritura  tomando  por  si  6  judiri- 
almente  su  pocesion  y  tenencia,  constituyiendose  en  el  interin  por  su 
enguelino,  y  precurio  posedor  en  legal  forma.  Se  obliga  ha  la  eviccion 
seguridad  y  sancamiento  de  esta  venta,  asi  como  a  que  jamas  servira 
de  obstaculo  el  articulo  segundo  de  la  escritura  de  compania  otorgante 
en  la  Mision  de  Sta.  Clara  a  dos  de  Noviembre  de  mil  ochocientos  cua- 
renta  y  cinco  pues  se  obliga  a  hacer  pasar  y  concenter  en  ella  a  sus 
consocios  asi  como  ha  concentido  y  pasado  el  Sor.  Ortogante,  pues  los 
que  han  echo  sus  compaiieros  en  la  inteligencia  que  si  esta  no  pudiese 
6  si  le  mobiese  al  comprador  algun  pleito  de  que  as  su  costo  no  lo  pu- 
diese dejar  en  quieto  y  pacifica  posesion  le  debolvera  los  cuatro  mil 
quinientos  pesos  que  confiese  tener  recibidos  con  las  frutas  de  las  tres 
varras  de  que  es  dueno  y  pagandole  toda  los  danos  perjuicios  y  menos 
cabos  que  se  originen  sin  mas  pruevas  que  el  simple  juramento  de  la 
parte,  y  para  el  cumplimiento  de  esta  obligacion  hipoteca  espresa,  espe- 
cial y  senaladamente  las  espresadas  tres  vaaras  que  no  podra  vender, 
gravar  ni  de  otra  manera  enagenar  sin  espreso  consentamiento  del  Sor. 
Comprador,  que  podra  en  caso  contrario  reclamar  los  hasta  de  tercero, 
mas  procedores  para  cubrirse  con  cuanto  con  arreglo  a  la  presente  es- 
critura se  le  adende  los  costos  de  esta  escritura  seran  de  cuento  de 
ambos  contrayentos  por  mitad,  y  siendo  presente  Dn.  Alejandro  Forbes, 
Consul  de  su  Magistad  Britanica  a  cuya  persona  mayor  de  edad  doy 
fe  conosco,  y  impuesta  del  contenido  de  esta  escritura  dijo  :  que  por  se 
y  en  legal  forma  acepta  la  presente,  protestando  para  el  efecto  voz  y 
convencion  de  gratu  et  ratu  y  por  si  mismo,  se  da  por  contento  y  sat- 
isfecho,  con  el  presente  instrumento,  obligandose  a  complir  lo  que  en  el 
ha  prometido,  y  le  pertenece.  Y  al  cumplimiento  de  todo  lo  espuesto 
el  Sor.  vendedor  obliga  a  mi  persona  y  bienes  presentes  y  futuros,  y 
con  ellos  se  somete  al  fuero  y  Jurisdiccion  de  los  Sores  Juez  es  que  de 
sus  causas  conforme  a  derecho  pueden  y  devan  conocer  para  que  a 
ellos  le  compelan  y  apremien  como  por  sentencia  definitiva,  consenti- 
da  y  pasada  en  autoridad  de  cosa  Jusgada  :  renuncio  su  fuero  dome- 
cilio  y  vecinidad,  con  la  general  del  derecho  y  la  que  prohive  su  gral 
renunciasion,  y  por  ante  mi  asi  lo  otorgo  y  firme  su  apoderado  con  el 
Sor.  Don  Alejando  Forbes,  siendo  testigos  Don  Antonio  Suool,  Don 
Jose  Noriega,  y  Don  Dolores  Pacheco  presentes  vecinos,  de  que  doy 
fe. 

Y  de  que  al  firmar  anadieron  los  Sores,  contrayentes  que  esta  venta 
y  toda  cuanta  consta  en  la  presente  escritura  no  tendra  en  verificativo 


151 

hasta  que  el  Sor.  Don  Alejandro  Forbes  esta  en  quieta  y  pacifica  po- 
sescion  de  las  tres  varras  bendidos  ;  y  si  por  cualquiera  personas,  6*  por 
cualquiera  motivo  fuere  pertunado  entonces  tendra  todo  su  efecto  la 
hipoteca  que  hase  para  ese  caso  de  las  dies  varas  de  que  se  hablo,  en 
la  clausala  de  eviccion  de  la  presente  escritura  reproduciend  ante  las 
misnios  testigos  la  guarentigia  para  el  cumplimiento  de  este  ultimo  y 
firmaron  doy  fe\ 

Como,  apoderado,  Fr.  Jose  M.  del  R.  S.  del  Real  de  asis\  Antonio 
Sufiol,  de  asisa.  Dolores  Pacheco. 

(Signed)  ALEX0.  FORBES. 

James  W.  Weeks, 

Alcalde. 

Certifico  que  el  documento  que  antecede  es  copia  fiel  sacada  a  la 
letra,  del  Original  Escritura  de  que  dop  fe  (fecha  ut  sufra). 

JAMES  W.  WEEKS, 

Alcalde. 


Recorder's  Office,  County  of  Santa  Clara, 
California,  May  11th,  A.  D.  1857. 

I  hereby  certify  that  the  foregoing,  on  pages  1,  2,  3,  4,  and  5,  of 
this,  is  a  full,  true,  and  correct  copy  of  an  instrument  of  record  in  this 
office,  recorded  in  Book  3  of  Deeds,  page  174. 

Note. — The  words,  "  esception  de  la  non  numeration  pecunia  la," 
interlined  on  2d  page,  13th  line  from  top,  having  been  omitted  in  copy- 
ing from  the  Record. 

r  — H^  )      Given  under  my  hand  and  official  seal,  at  the  city  of  San 
j  seal  |  Jose*,  the  day  and  year  last  written. 
1  —  *•  S.  A.  CLARK, 

County  Recorder. 

By  Geo.  M.  Yoell, 

Deputy. 


EXHIBIT  "  II.  L.,"  No.  1. 

En  la  Cuidad  de  Tepic  a  primero  de  Marzo  de  mil  ochocientos  cua- 
renta  y  siete,  ante  me  el  Escribano  y  testigos,  el  Senor  Don  Jose  Cas- 


152 

tro  transienste  en  esta  y  a  quien  doy  fe  conoser  dijo :  que  es  duefio  en 
propiedad  de  cuatro  varras  en  una  mina  de  plata  con  ley  de  oro  y  aso- 
gue,  situada  en  pertenencias  del  rancho  de  Don  Jose  Reyes  Berreyesa 
en  Jurisdiccion  del  Pueblo  de  San  Jose  de  Guadalupe  del  territorio 
dela  Alta  California  en  el  segundo  Distrito  de  Monterey,  segun  consta 
en  los  archivos  de  aquel  partido  y  de  donde  estrajo  una  copia  estra-  « 
judicial  del  contrato  de  esa  Compania,  cuyo  documento  presenta  ya  | 
rubricado  por  este  oficio  y  en  donde  dando  fe  del  tal  papel  dise  este  | 
a  la  letra  lo  que  sigue. 

Documto  de  "  Escritura  de  compania  que  el  Senor  Don  Andres  Cas- 
compania.  tillero,  Capitan  de  Caballeria  permanente  celebra  con  el 
Senor  Comandante  General  Don  Jose*  Castro,  los  Seilores  Secundino 
Robles,  Teodoro  Robles  y  una  cesion  voluntario  que  han  heeho  los  Corn- 
pafieros perpetuamte-  al  R.  P.  Fr.  Jose  Maria  del  Refugio  Suares  del 
Real,  de  una  mina  de  plata  con  ley  de  oro  y  asogue  en  el  rancho  de 
Don  Jose  Reyes  Berreyesa  en  Jurisdiccion  del  Pueblo  de  San  Jose  de 
Guadalupe. 

Articulo  primero. — El  Senor  Don  Andres  Castillero  arreglandose  en 
un  todo  a  la  ordenanza  de  Mineria  hase  formal  compania  perpetuamente 
con  los  mencionados  Seiiores  en  esta  forma.  La  mitad  de  la  mina  que 
es  de  la  que  puede  disponer  se  dividira  en  tres  acciones  en  esta  forma 
cuatro  varras  al  Senor  Comandante  General ;  cuatro  varras  a  los  Seii- 
ores Secundino  y  Teodoro  Robles,  y  las  otras  cuatro  al  R.  P.  Fray 
Jose  Maria  del  Refugio  Suares  del  Real  en  clase  de  donacion  per- 
petua. 

Articulo  segundo. — Ninguno  de  los  cornpafieros  podra  vender  6  en- 
agenar  ninguna  de  sus  acciones  de  manera  que  el  que  verificase  dicha 
enagenacion  perdera  su  clerecho,  quedando  renunciada  en  los  demas 
cornpafieros. 

Articulo  tercero. — Los  gastos  se  haran  en  proporcion  de  las  acciones 
llevandose,  una  cuenta  formal. 

Articulo  cuatro. — Arreglandose  en  un  todo  a  lo  que  previene  la  or- 
denanza de  mineria  cualquiera  diferencia  se  resolvera  por  los  corn- 
pafieros. 

Articulo  quinto. — Disigira  las  labores,  gastos  y  trabajos  de  la  mina 
Don  Andres  Castillero  y  en  su  defecto  el  R.  P.  Fray  Jose  Maria  del 
Refugio  Suares  del  Real. 

Articulo  sesto. — No  se  estrahera  de  los  productos  mas  cantidad  que  - 
los  que  necesiten  para  el  arreglo  de  la  negociasion  hasta  que  se  arre- 
glen  los  trabajos ;  y  cualquier  cantidad  que  se   sague  ha  de  ser  con 
conosimiento  de  todos  los  Cornpafieros  hasta  que  arreglada  la  nego- 
ciasion. 

Articulo  septimo. — Estos  convenios  se  autorisaran  a  presencia  del 
Senor  Prefecto  del  segundo  Distrito  Don  Manuel  Castro  depositandose 


153 

el  documento  original  en  el  archivo  del  partido,  y  dandose  una  copia 
certificada  por  S.  S.  a  I03  interesados. 

Micion  de  Santa  Clara  dos  de  Novieinbre  de  mil  ochocientos  cua- 
renta  y  cinco. 

ANDRES  CASTILLERO. 

Por  el  Senor  Comandante  General,  Don  Jose  Castro. 

ANDRES  CASTILLERO. 
FRAY  JOSE  MARIA  del  REFUGIO  SUARES  del  REAL. 

Por  Secundino  y  Teodoro  Robles, 

FRANCISCO  ARSE. 

Es  copia  fiel  del  original  a  la  que  un  remito.     Mision  de  Santa 
Clara,  Diciembre  ocho,  de  mil  ochocientos  cuarenta  y  cinco. 

MANUEL  CASTRO. 
ANTONIO  MARIA  PICO. 

Es  copia,  Mexico,  Diciembre  cinco,  cle  mil  ochocientos  cuarenta  y 
seis. 

ANDRES  CASTILLERO. 

sigue  la  Que  Por  1°  aun  ex^°  J  con  tal  caracter  de  accionista  en  esa 
venta.  mina  con  las  varras  que  le  corresponden  y  en  aquella  via  y 
forma  que  mejor  haya  lugar,  en  derecho,  otorga :  que  por  si  y  a  nom- 
bre  de  sus  herederos  y  susesores  0  de  quien  de  ellos  hubiese  titulo  voz 
y  causa  da  en  venta  real  enagenacion  perpetua  al  Senor  Don  Alejan- 
dro Forbes  de  esta  vecinidad  y  convenio  para  si  y  para  lo  sullos  una 
vare  de  las  que  le  corresponden  en  la  mina  que  se  ha  referido  y  se 
conose  con  el  nombre  de  Santa  Clara.  Que  trasfiere  en  el  Senor  com- 
prador el  dominio  util.  y  directo  de  la  espresada  varra,  con  todos  sus 
usos  aprovechamientos  y  servidumbres  con  cuanto  mas  en  derecho  le 
pueda  tocar  y  pertenecer  pues  todo  lo  cede  y  traspasa  en  el  mencion- 
ado  Senor  Forbes  y  declara  el  otorgante  que  esa  varra  que  enagena 
esta  libro  de  todo  gravamen  tacito  y  espreso,  como  asi  lo  asegura  y 
que  la  venta  la  hase  en  cantidad  de  ochocientos  pesos  que  confiesa  te- 
ner  recibidos  a  toda  su  satisfaccion  y  como  que  esta  cantidad  no  parese 
de  presente  renuncia  la  ley  9,  titulo  1°.  partida  5a.  y  las  dos  afios  que 
prefiere  para  la  prueva  del  recibo  los  que  da  por  pasados  como  si  lo 
estubieran  otorgando  desde  ahora  el  mas  firma  y  eficas  resguardo  que 
condusca  a  la  seguridad  del  comprador. 

Ygualmente  asegura  que  la  cantidad  de  ochocientos  pesos  en  que 

vende  esa  varra  es  lo  que  ella  vale  y  qe.  aunque  mas  valiese  del  exiso 

cualquiera  que  sea  en  poca  0  mucha  suma  hase  gracia  y  donacion  en 

el  comprador  y-los  suyos  conforme  a  derecho  y  renuncia  la  ley  2,  titulo 

18 


154 

1°,  Libro,  lo  de  la  Novissima  Recopilacion  y  su  beneficio  de  los  cuatro 
afios  para  pedir  la  recision  de  este  contrato  6  supleniento  del  Justo  va- 
lor de  la  cosa  vendida,  cuyo  termino  da  por  pasada  como  si  lo  estubi- 
era.  En  consequencia  de  desapodera  deciste  y  aparta,  de  cualquiera 
derecho  que  haya  tenido  y  tener  pueda  a  la  mencionada  varra  para 
que  como  propia  del  comprador,  y  adquirida  con  legitimo  titulo  desem- 
pene  la  accion  que  en  ella  le  corresponda  y  se  posesione  de  ella  en  lo 
Judicial  6  estrajudicial  en  virtud  de  este  instrumento.  Ygualmente  el 
Senor  otorgante,  se  obliga  a  la  eviccion  y  saniamento  de  esta  venta  asi 
como  a  que  jamas  servira  de  ostaculo  para  ella  cl  articulo  segundo  de 
la  escritura  de  compania  qe.  ya  queda  inserta  pues  se  obliga  a  haser 
pasar  y  consentir  en  esta  venta  a  sus  consocios,  asi  como  a  consentido 
y  pasado  el  Senor  otorgante  por  las  que  han  hecho  sus  companeros,  y 
a  este  efecto  ratifica  la  eviccion  y  saniamiento  que  ofrese. 

Y  siendo  presente  el  Senor  Don  Alejandro  Forbes  a 
quien  doy  fe  conosco  e  impuesto  de  esta  escritura  dijo  que 
por  si  y  para  los  suyos  asepta  la  venta  que  se  le  hase  bajo  el  senia- 
miento  que  se  le  ofrese  y  queda  obligado  a  como  accionista  de  la  mina 
en  la  varra  que  se  le  vende  a  cumplir  con  los  demas  socios  en  lo  que 
le  demarque  la  ordenanza  del  ramo.  Y  al  cumplimiento  de  lo  espuesto 
obligan  los  Seiiores  otorgantes  sus  bienes  presentes  y  futuros  con  sumi- 
cion  y  renunciacion  de  las  leyes  y  privileges  que  sean  do  su  favor  y 
defensa  para  ser  estrechados  como  si  fuera  por  sentencia  pasada  en  au~ 
toridad  de  cosa  Juzgada,  y  firmaron  siendo  testigos  Don  Ignacio  Ma- 
riscal,  Don  Santos  Gallegos,  y  Don  Francisco  de  los  Rios  presentes 
doy  fe\ 

JOSE  CASTRO, 
ALEJANDRO  FORBES, 
JESUS  VEGAR. 


seRund  En  la  Ciudad  de  Tepic  a  doce  de  Abril  de  mil  ochoeientos 
Eseytura.  cuarenta  y  siete  ante  me  el  Escribano  y  testigos,  El  Senor 
Don  Jose  Castro,  residente  en  esta,  y  a  quien  doy  fe  conosco  dijo  : 
que  es  dueno  en  propiedad  de  cuatro  varras  en  una  mina  de  plata  con 
ley  de  de  oro  y  a30gue  cituada  en  pertenencias  del  Rancho  de  Don 
Jose  Reyes  Berreyesa  en  Jurisdiccion  del  Pueblo  de  San  Jose'  de  Gua- 
dalupe del  territorio  de  la  Alta  California  en  el  segundo  Distrito  de 
Monterey  segun  consta  en  los  archivos  de  aquel  partido  y  de  donde 
estraja  una  copia  estrajudicial  del  contrato  de  esa  compania  cuyo  doc- 
umento  presenta  ya  rubricado  por  este  oficio  y  en  donde  dando  fe  del 
tal  papel  dise  este  a  la  letra  lo  que  sigue. 


155 

Documento  "  Escritura  de  compania  que  el  Senor  Don  Andres  Cas- 
decompasia.  tiller0  Capitan  de  Caballeria  permanente  celebra  con  el 
Senor  Comandante  General  Don  Jose  Castro,  los  Senores  Secundino 
Robles  y  Teodoro  Robles,  y  una  cesion  voluntaria  que  han  hecho  los 
companeros  perpetuamente  al  R.  P.  Fray  Jose  Maria  del  Refugio  Sua- 
res  del  Real  de  una  mina  de  plata  con  ley  de  oro  y  asogue  en  el  ran- 
cho  de  Don  Jose  Reyes  Berreyesa  en  Jurisdiccion  del  Pueblo  de  San 
Jose*  de  Guadalupe. 

Articulo  primer o. — El  Senor  Don  Andres  Castillero  arreglandose  en 
un  todo  a  la  ordenanza  de  Mineria  hase  formal  compania  perpetua- 
mente con  los  mencionados  Senores,  en  esta  forma.  La  mitad  de  la 
mina  que  es  de  la  que  puede  disponer  se  dividira  en  tres  acciones  en 
esta  forma  :  cuatro  varras  al  Senor  Comandante  General :  Cuatro  var- 
ras  a  los  Senores  Secundino  y  Teodoro  Robles,  y  los  otras  cuatro  al 
Reverendo  Padre  Fray  Jose  Maria  del  Refugio  Suares  del  Real  en 
clase  de  donacion  perpetua. 

Articulo  segundo.  — Ninguno  de  los  Companeros  podra  vender  ni 
enagenar  ninguna  de  sus  acciones  de  manera  que  el  que  verificase, 
dicha  enagenacion  perdera  su  derecho  que  dando  reunida  en  los  demas 
companeros. 

Articulo  tercero. — Los  gastos  se  haran  en  proporcion  de  las  acciones 
llevandose  una  cuenta  formal. 

Articulo  cuarto. — Arreglandose  en  un  todo  a  lo  que  previene  la 
ordenanza  de  Mineria  cualquiera  diferencia  se  resolvera  por  los  com- 
paneros. 

Articulo  quiuto. — Disijira  las  lavores,  gastos  y  trabajos  de  la  mina 
Don  Andres  Castillero,  y  en  su  defecto  el  Reverendo  Padre  Fray  Jose 
Maria  del  Refugio  Suares  del  Real. 

Articulo  sesto. — No  se  estrahera  de  los  productos  mas  cantidad  que 
los  que  de  necesiten  para  el  arreglo  de  la  negociasion  hasta  que  se 
arreglen  los  trabajos,  y  cualquiera  cantidad  que  se  saque  ha  de  ser  con 
conosimiento  de  todos  los  companeros  hasta  que  arreglada  la  negocia- 
sion. 

Articulo  septimo. — Estos  convenios  se  autorisaran  a  presencia  del 
Senor  Prefecto  del  segundo  Distrito  Don  Manuel  Castro  depositandose 
el  documento  original  en  el  archivo  del  Partido  y  dandose  una  copia 
certificada  por  S.  S.  a  los  interesados. 

Micion  de  Santa  Clara  dos  de  Noviembre  de  mil  ochocientos  curenta 
y  cinco. 

ANDRES  CASTILLERO. 

Por  el  Senor  Comandante  General  Don  Jose  Castro, 

ANDRES  CASTILLERO. 
FRAY  JOSE  MARIA  del  REFUGIO  SUARES  del  REAL. 


156 

Por  Secundino  y  Teodoro  Robles, 


FRANCISCO  ARSE. 


Es  copia  fiel  del  original  a  la  que  un  remito. 

Micion  de  Santa  Clara  Diciembre  ocho  de  mil  ochocientos  eurenta 
y  cinco. 

MANUEL  CASTRO. 

ANTONIO  MARIA  PICO. 

Es  copia  Mejico  Diciembre  cinco  de  mil  ochocientos  cuarenta  y  seis. 

ANDRES  CASTILLERO. 

Que  por  lo  incerto  deja  acreditado  el  Senor  esponente,  que  en  esa 
mina  ha  tenido  una  accion  por  cuatro  varras,  y  ahora  declara  que  de 
ellas  ya  tiene  vendida  una  al  Senor  Don  Alejandro  Forbes,  por  escri- 
tura  que  le  otorgo  el  primero  de  Marzo  de  este  alio  ante  este  oficio  (se 
da  fe  consta  asi  en  el  registro)  Que  quedando  pues  en  propiedad  de 
tres  varras  a  la  vez  le  conviene  a  sus  intereses  vender  otra  de  esas,  y 
por  tanto,  y  en  aquella  via  y  forma  que  mejor  haya  lugar  en  derecho 
otorga  que  por  se  y  a  nombre  de  sus  herederos  y  susesores  6  de  quien 
de  ellos  hubiese  titulo  voz  y  causa  da  en  venta  real  y  enagenacion, 
perpetua  al  mismo  Senor  Don  Alejandro  Forbes  de  esta  vecinidad  y 
comercio  para  si  y  para  los  suyos,  una  varra  de  las  tres  que  aun  le 
corresponden  al  otorgante  en  la  mina  que  se  ha  referido  y  se  conose 
con  el  nombre  de  Santa  Clara.  Que  transfiere  en  el  Senor  comprador 
el  dominio  util  y  directo  de  la  espresada  varra  con  todos  sus  usosapro* 
vechamientos  y  servidumbres  con  cuanto  usas  en  derecho  le  puede  to- 
car  y  pertenencer,  pues  todo  lo  cede  y  traspasa  en  el  mencionado  Se- 
nor Forbes.  Y  declara  el  otorgante  que  esa  varra  que  enagena  esta  libre 
de  todo  gravamen  tacito  y  espreso  como  asi  lo  asegura  y  que  la  venta 
la  hase  en  cantidad  de  un  mil  pesos,  que  confiesa  tener  recibido  a  toda 
sn  satisfaccion  y  como  esta  cantidad  no  parese  de  presente,  renuncia 
la,  ley  9,  titulo  1°  partida  5a  y  los  dos  anos  que  prefiere  para  la  prue- 
ba  del  recibi  los  que  da  por  pasados  como  si  lo  estubieran,  otorgando 
desde  ahora  el  mas  firme  y  eficas  resguardo  que  condusca  a  la  seguri-' 
dad  del  comprador.  Ygualmente  asegura  que  la  cantidad  de  un  mil  pe- 
sos en  que  vende  esa  varra  es  lo  que  ella  vale,  y  que  aunque  mas  valiere 
del  exceso  cualquiera  que  sea  en  poca  6  mucha  suma  hase  gracia  y  do- 
nacion  en  el  comprador  y  los  suyos  conforme  a  derecho  y  renuncia  la 
ley  2  titulo  1°  Libro  10  de  la  Novisima  Recopilacion  y  su  beneficio  de 
I03  cuatro  alios  para  pedir  la  recision  de  este  contrato  o  suplemento 
del  susto  valor  de  la  cosa  vendida  cuyo  termino  da  por  pasado  como  si 
lo  estuviera.  En  consequencia  se  desapodera  deciste  y  aparta  de  cual- 
quiera derecho  que  haya  tenido  y  tener  pueda  a  la  mencionada  varra, 
para  que  como  propia  del  comprador  y  adquirida  con  legitimo  titulo 


157 

desempefie  la  accion  que  en  ella  le  corresponde  y  se  posecione  de  ella 
en  lo  judicial  6  estrajudicial  en  virtud  de  este  instrumento.  Ygual- 
mente  el  Seilor  otorgante  se  obliga  a  la  eviccion  y  saniamiento  de  esta 
venta  asi  como  a  que  jamas  servira  de  obstaculo  para  ella  el  articulo 
segundo  de  la  escritura  de  compafiia  que  ya  queda  incerta  pues  se  ob- 
liga 4  haser  pasar  y  consentir  en  esta  venta  a  sus  consocios  asi  como 
ha  consentido  y  pasado  el  Senor  otorgante  por  las  que  ban  hecho  sus 
compaiieros  y  a  este  efecto  ratifica  la  eviccion  y  saniamiento  que 
ofrese. 

Y  siendo  presente  el  Senor  Don  Alejandro  Forbes  a  quien 

Aseptasion.        -in  » *         >  •  ,       i  ,  °   *  •, . .  -1 

doy  ie  conosco,  e  impuesto  de  esta  escritura  dyo  ;  que  por 
se  y  para  los  suyos  asepta  la  venta  que  se  le  hase  bajo  el  saniamiento 
que  se  le  ofrese  y  queda  obligado  a  como  accionista  de  la  mina  en  la 
varra  que  se  le  vende,  a  cumplir  con  los  demas  socios  en  lo  que  le  de- 
marque  la  ordenanza  del  ramo.  Y  al  cumplimiento  de  lo  espuesto  ob- 
ligan  los  Senores  otorgantes  sus  bienes  presentes  y  futuros  con  sumici- 
on  y  renunciacion  de  las  leyes  y  privilegios  que  sean  de  su  favor  y  de- 
fensa  para  ser  estrechados  como  si  fuera  por  sentencia  pasada  en  auto- 
ridad  cle  cosa  Jusgada,  y  firmaron  siendo  testigos  Don  Ignacio  Mariscal, 
Don  Santos  Gallegos,  y  Don  Romon  Ponse,  presentes  doy  fe*. 

JOSE  CASTRO, 
ALEJANDRO  FORBES, 
JESUS  VEGAR. 


3a  Escri-  En  la  Ciudad  de  Tepic  a  deis  y  seis  de  Abril  de  mil  ocho- 
tura.        cientos  cuarenta  y  siete. 

Ante  me  el  Escribano  y  testigos,  el  Seilor  Don  Jose  Castro  residente 
en  esta  y  a  quien  doy  fe  conosco  dijo :  que  ha  sido  dueno  en  propiedad 
de  cuatro  varras  en  una  mina  de  plata  con  ley  de  oro  y  asogue  cituada 
en  peftenencias  del  Pueblo  de  San  Jose  de  Guadalupe  del  territorio  de 
la  Alta  California  en  el  segundo  Distrito  de  Monterey  Begun  consta  en 
los  archivos  de  aquel  partido  y  de  donde  estrajo  una  copia  estrajudicial 
del  contrato  de  esa  compania  cuyo  documento  presento  y  a  rubricado 
por  este  oficio  y  en  donde  dando  fe  del  tal  papel  dise  esta  a  la  letra  lo 
que  sigue. 

Documento  "  Escritura  de  compania  que  el  Seilor  Don  Andres  Cas- 
dc  compania.  tillero  Capitan  de  Caballeria  permanente  celebra  con  el 
Seilor  Comandante  General  Don  Jose  Castro,  los  Senores  Secundino 
Robles,  Teodoro  Robles,  y  una  cesion  voluntaria  que  ban  hecho  los 
companeros  perpetuamte  al  Reverendo  Padre  Fray  Jose  Maria  del  Re- 
fugio Suares  del  Real  de  una  mina  de  plata  con  ley  de  oro  y  asogue 


158 

en  el  rancho  de  Don  Jose  Reyes  Berrejesa  en  Jurisdiccion  del  Pueblo 
de  San  Jose*  de  Guadalupe. 

Artieulo  primero. — El  Seilor  Don  Andres  Castillero  arreglandose  en 
un  todo  a  la  ordenanza  de  Mineria  hase  formal  compania  perpetua- 
mente  con  los  mencionados  Senores  en  esta  forma.  La  mitad  de  la 
mina  que  es  de  la  que  puede  disponer  se  dividira  en  tres  acciones  en 
esta  forma :  Cuatro  varras  al  Senor  Comandante  General :  Cuatro 
varras  a  los  Senores  Secundino  y  Teodoro  Robles  y  las  otras  cuatro  al 
Reverendo  Padre  Fray  Jose  Maria  del  Refugio  Suares  del  Real  en 
clase  de  donacion  perpetua. 

Artieulo  seeundo. — Ninguno  de  los  companeros  podia  vender  6  ena- 
jenar  ninguna  de  sus  acciones  de  manera  que  el  que  verificase  dicha 
enajenacion  perdera  su  derecho  quedando  reunido  los  demas  compa- 
neros. 

Artieulo  tercero. — Los  gastos  se  haran  en  proporcion  de  las  acciones 
llevandose  una  cuenta  formal. 

Artieulo  cuarto. — Arreglandose  en  un  todo  a  lo  que  previene  la  or- 
denanza de  mineria  cualquiera  diferencia  se  resolvira  por  los  compa- 
neros. 

Artieulo  quinto. — Dirijira  las  labores  gastos  y  trabajos  de  la  mina 
Don  Andres  Castillero,  y  en  su  defecto  el  Reverendo  Padre  Fray  Jose 
Maria  del  Refugio  Suares  del  Real. 

Artieulo  sesto. — No  se  estrahera  de  los  productos  mas  cantidad  que 
las  que  se  necessiten  para  el  arreglo  de  la  negociasion  hasta  que  se  arre 
glan  los  trabajos  y  cualquiera  cantidad  que  se  saque  ha  de  ser  con  co- 
nosimiento  de  todos  los  compaileros  hasta  que  arreglada  la  negociasion. 

Artieulo  septimo. — Estos  convenios  se  autorisaran  a  presencia  del 
Senor  Prefecto  del  segundo  Distrito  Don  Manuel  Castro,  depositandose 
el  documento  original  en  el  archivo  del  partido  y  dandose  una  copia 
certificada  por  S.  S.  a  los  interesados. 

Micion  de  Santa  Clara  dos  de  Noviembre  de  mil  ochocientos  cuarenta 
y  cinco. 

ANDRES  CASTILLERO. 

Por  el  Senor  Comandante  General  Don  Jose  Castro. 

ANDRES  CASTILLERO. 
FRAY  JOSE  MARIA  del  REFUGIO  SUARES  del  REAL. 

Por  Secundino  y  Teodoro  Robles, 

FRANCISCO  ARCE. 

Es  copia  fiel  del  original  a  la  que  me  remito. 

Micion  de  Santa  Clara  Diciembre  ocho  de  mil  ochocientos  cuarenta 
y  cinco. 

MANUEL  CASTRO. 

ANTONIO  MARIA  PICO. 


159 

Es  copia  Mejico  Deciembre  cinco  de  mil  ocho  cientos  cuarenta  y  seis 

ANDRES   CASTILLERO. 


sipuaia  Que  Por  1°  incerto  deja  acreditado  el  Senor  esponente  que 
escntura.  en  esa  mma  jia  tenido  una  accion  por  cuatro  varras  y  ahora 
declara  que  de  ellas  ya  tiene  vendidas  dos  al  Senor  Don  Alejandro 
Forbes  por  escrituras  que  le  otorgo  el  primero  de  Marzo  de  este  aiio  y 
dose  del  presente  mes  ante  este  oficio  (se  da  fe  constar  asi  en  el  regis- 
tro)  Que  quedando  pues  en  propiedad  de  dos  varras  a  la  vez  le  convi- 
ene  a  sus  intereses  vender  otra  de  esas  y  por  tanto  en  aquella  via  y 
forma  que  mejor  haya  lugar  en  derecho  otorga  :  que  por  si  y  a  nombre 
de  sus  herederos  y  suseros  o  de  quien  de  ellos  hubiera  titulo  vos  y  cau- 
sa, da  en  venta  real  y  enagenacion  perpetua  al  mismo  Senor  Don  Ale- 
jandro Forbes,  de  esta  vecinidad  y  comercio  para  se  y  para  los  suyos 
una  varra  de  las  dos  que  aim  le  corresponden  al  otorgante  en  la  mina 
que  se  ha  referido  y  se  conose  con  el  nombre  de  Santa  Clara.  Que 
transfiere  en  el  Senor  comprador  el  dominio  util  y  directo  de  la  espre- 
sada  varra  con  todos  sus  usos  aprovechamientos  y  servidumbres  con 
cuanto  mas  en  derecho  le  pueda  tocar  y.pertenecer  puestodolo  cede  y 
traspasa  en  el  mencionado  Senor  Forbes.  Y  declara  el  otorgante  que 
esa  varra  que  enagena  esta  libre  de  todo  gravamen  tacito  y  espreso 
como  asi  lo  asegura,  y  que  la  venta  hase  en  cantidad  de  un  mil  pesos 
que  confiese,  tener  recibidos  a  toda  su  satisfaction  y  como  que  esta 
cantidad  no  parese  de  presente  renuncia  la  ley  9,  titulo  1°  partida  5a  y 
los  dos  anos  que  prefiere  para  la  prueba  del  recibo  los  que  da  por  pa- 
sados  como  si  lo  estubieran,  otorgando  desde  ahora  el  mas  firme  y  efi- 
cas  resguardo  que  condusca,  a  la  seguridad  del  comprador. 

Igualmente  asegura  que  la  cantidad  de  un  mil  pesos  en  que  vende  esa 
varra  es  lo  ella  vale  y  que  aunque  mas  valiere  del  exceso  cualquiera 
que  sea  su  poca  o  mucha  suma  hase  gracia  y  donacion  al  comprador  y 
los  suyos  conforme  a  derecho,  y  renuncia  la  ley  2  titulo  1°  Libro  1°  de 
la  Novisima  Recopilacion  y  su  beneficio  de  los  cuatro  anos  para  pedir 
la  recision  de  este  contrato  6  suplemento  del  Justo  valor  de  la  cosa 
vendida  cuyo  termino  da  por  pasado  como  asi  lo  estuviera. 

En  consequencia  se  desapodera  deciste  y  aparta  de  cualquiera  dere- 
cho que  haya  tenido  y  tener  puede  a  la  mencionada  varra  para  que 
como  propia  del  comprador  y  adquirida  con  legitimo  titulo  desempene 
la  accion  que  en  ella  le  corresponde  y  se  posesione  de  ella  en  lo  judi- 
cial 6  estrajudicial  en  virtud  de  este  instrumento.  Yinialmente  el  Se- 
iior  otorgante  se  obliga  a  la  eviccion  y  saniamiento  de  esta  venta  asi 
como  a  que  jamas  servira  de  obstaculo  para  ella  el  articulo  segundo  de 
la  escritura  de  compania  que  ya  queda  incerta  pues  se  obliga  a  haser 
pasar  y  consentir  en  esta  venta  a  sus  consocios,  asi  como  ha  consentido 
y  pasado  el  Senor  otorgante  por  las  que  han  hecho  sus  compafieros  y 
a  este  efecto  ratifica  la  eviccion  y  saniamiento  que  ofrese. 


160 
Y  siendo  presente  el  Sefior  Don  Alejandro  Forbes  a  quien 

Aseptacion.       \         n  ,  ■  ■*  •,  i"  /> 

doy  fe  conosco,  e  impuesto  de  esentura  dijo,  que  por  se  y 
para  los  suyos  asepta  la  vcnta,  que  se  le  liase  bajo  el  saniamiento  que 
se  le  ofrese  y  queda  obligado  como  accionista  de  la  mina  en  la  varra 
que  se  le  vende  a  cumplir  con  los  demas  socios  en  lo  que  le  demarque 
la  ordenanza  del  ramo. 

Y  al  cuniplimiento  de  lo  espuesto,  obligan  los  Senores  otorgantes  sus 
bienes  presentes  y  futuros  con  suniicion  y  renunciacion  de  las  leyes  y 
privilegios  que  sean  de  su  favor  y  defensa  para  ser  estrechados  como 
si  fuera  por  sentencia  pasada  en  autoridad  de  cosa  jusgada  y  firmaron 
siendo  testagos  Don  Ignaeio  Mariscal. 

Don  Santos  Gallegos  y  Don  Ramon  Panse  presentes  doy  fe. 
.  .  JOSE  CASTRO, 

ALEJANDRO  FORBES, 
JESUS  VEGAR. 


4»  Escri-  En  la  ciudad  de  Tepic  a  diez  de  Mayo  de  mil  ochocientos 
tura-  cuarenta  y  siete,  ante  me  el  Escribano  y  testigos  el  Senor  Don 
Jose'  Castro,  residente  en  esta  y  en  su  persona  que  doy  fe  conoser  dijo ; 
que  era  dueilo  en  propriedad  de  cuatro  varras  6  acciones  en  una  mina 
de  plata  con  ley  de  oro  y  asogue  cituada  en  pertenencias  del  rancho  de 
Don  Jose  Reyes  Berreyesa  en  Jurisdiccion  del  pueblo  de  San  Jose  de 
Guadalupe  del  territorio  de  la  Alta  California  en  el  segundo  Distrito 
de  Monterey  segun  cons,ta  en  los  archivos  de  aquel  partido  y  de  donde 
estraja  una  copia  estrajudicial  del  contrato  de  esa  compania  cuyo  doc- 
umento  presenta  rubricado  y  a  por  este  oficio  por  haberlo  tenido  a  la 
vista  en  otros  contratos  y  dandose  f£  de  esa  constancia  dise  a  la  letra 
lo  que  sigue : 

Const<,  (1(!  Escritura  de  compania  que  el  Senor  Don  Andres  Castille- 
compania.  r0  (}apitan  de  Caballeria  permanente  celebra  con  el  Senor 
Comandante  General  Don  Jose  Castro,  los  Senores  Secundino  Robles, 
Teodoro  Robles,  y  una  cesion  voluntaria  que  han  hecho  los  companeros 
perpetuamte  al  R.  P.  Fray  Jose  Maria  del  Refugio  Suares  del  Real  de 
una  mina  de  plata  con  ley  de  oro  y  asogue  en  el  rancho  de  Don  Jose 
Reyes  Berreyesa  en  Jurisdiccion  del  Pueblo  de  San  Jose  de  Guada- 
lupe. 

Articulo  primero. — El  Senor  Don  Andres  Castillero,  arreglandose 
en  un  todo  a  la  ordenanza  de  mineria  hase  formal  compania  perpetua- 
mente,  con  los  mencionados  Seilores  en  esta  forma:  La  mitad  de  la 
mina  que  es  de  la  que  puede  disponer  se  dividira  en  tres  acciones  en 
esta  forma :  Cuatro  varras  al   Senor  Comandante  General ;  Cuatro 


161 

• 
varras  a  los  Seiiores  Secundino  y  Teodoro  Robles  y  las  otras  cuatro  al 
R.  P.  F.  Jose  Maria  del  Refugio  Suares  del  Real  en  clase  de  donaeion 
perpetua. 

Articulo  segundo. — Ninguno  de  los  eompaneros  podra  vender  6  en- 
agenar  ninguna  de  sus  acciones  de  manera  que  el  que  verificase  dicha 
enagenacion  perdera  su  derecho,  quedando  resumida  en  los  demas 
eompaneros. 

Articulo  tercero. — Los  gastos  se  haran  a  proporcion  de  las  acciones 
llevandose,  una  cuenta  formal. 

Articulo  cuatro. — Arreglandose  en  un  todo  a  lo  que  previene  la  or- 
denanza  de  mineria  cualquiera  diferencia  se  resolvera  por  los  eom- 
paneros. 

Articulo  quinto. — Dirijira  las  labores,  gastos  y  trabajos  de  la  mina 
Don  Andres  Castillero  y  en  su  defecto  el  R.  P.  Fray  Jose  Maria  del 
Refugio  Suares  del  Real. 

Articulo  sesto. — No  se  estraera  de  los  productos  mas  cantidad  que 
los  que  se  necesiten  para  el  arreglo  de  la  negociasion  hasta  que  se  ar- 
reglen  los  trabajos  y  cualquier  cantidad  que  se  saque  ha  de  ser  con 
conosimiento  de  todos  los  Companeros  que  qneda  arreglada  la  nego- 
siasion. 

Articulo  septimo. — Estos  convenios  se  autorisan  a  presencia  del 
Senor  Prefecto  del  segundo  Distrito  Don  Manuel  Castro  depositandose 
el  documento  original  en  el  archivo  del  partido  y  dandose  una  copia 
certificada  por  S.  S.  a  los  interesados. 

Micion  de  Santa  Clara  dos  de  Noviembre  de  mil  ochocientos  cua- 
renta  y  cinco. 

ANDRES  CASTILLERO. 

Por  el  Senor  Comandante  General  Don  Jose  Castro, 

ANDRES  CASTILLERO. 
FRAY  JOSE  MARIA  del  REFUGIO  SUARES  del  REAL. 

Por  "Secundino  y  Teodoro  Robles, 

FRANCISCO  ARSE. 

Es  copial  fiel  del  original  a  la  que  me  remito. 
Micion  de  Santa  Clara,  Diciembre  ocho  de  mil  ochocientos  cuarenta 
y  cinco. 

MANUEL  CASTRO. 

ANTONIO  MARIA  PICO. 

Es  copia  Mejico  Diciembre  cinco  de  mil  ochocientos  cuarenta  y  seis. 

ANDRES  CASTILLERO. 

Btgueia  Que  Por  lo  incerto  y  con  tal  caracter  de  accionista  en  esamina 
venta.      p0r  iag  cuatro  varras  "  que  le  correspondieron,  sigue  diciendo 


162 

l 

el  mismo  Don  Jose  Castro  que  cle  las  dichas  cuatro  van-as,"  ya  tiene 
vendidas  tres  al  Seiior  Don  Alejandro  Forbes  de  esta  vecinidad  segun 
las  escrituras  de  venta  que  le  ha  otorgado  ante  este  oficio  el  primero 
de  Marzo  dose  y  diez  y  seis  de  Abril  de  este  ano,  cuyas  escrituras  ra- 
tifica  de  nuevo  como  ventas  legales  que  ha  hecho,  y  que  viendose  por 
ellas  que  al  que  espone  solo  le  queda  una  en  esa  mina  ahora  y  por  con- 
venirle  a  sus  intereses  trata  de  enagenarla  quedando  despendido  en  un 
todo  de  la  accion  que  le  pertenecia  en  la  citada  mina.  Que  por  tanto 
y  en  aquella  via  y  forma  que  mas  firme  sea,  otorga  el  repitido  Senor 
Castro  ;  que  por  si  y  a  nombre  de  sus  herederos  y  susesores  6  de  quien 
de  ellos  hubiese  titulo  voz  y  causa,  en  manera  alguna,  da  en  venta  real 
y  enajenacion  perpetua  al  mismo  Senor  Don  Alejandro  Forbes,  de  esta 
vecinidad  y  comercio  para  se  y  para  los  suyos,  esa  varra  que  aun  ha 
correspondido  al  otorgante  en  la  supra  dicha  mina  que  se  conose  con  el 
nombre  de  Santa  Clara.  Y  como  unica  propiedad  que  en  ella  le  que- 
dava  que  transfiere  en  el  Senor  Comprador  el  dominio  util  y  directo  de 
la  espresada  varra  con  todos  sus  usos  aprovechamientos  y  servidumbres 
y  cuanto  mas  en  derecho  le  pueda  tocar  y  pertenecer  pues  todo  lo  cede 
y  traspasa  en  el  mencionado  Senor  Forbes.  Y  declara  el  otorgante 
que  esta  varra  ultima  que  enajena  esta  libre  de  todo  gravamen  tacito 
y  espreso  como  asi  lo  asegura  y  que  la  venta  la  base  en  cantidad  de 
mil  pesos  que  confiesa  tener  reqibidos  en  buena  moneda  a  su  satisfac- 
cion  y  que  como  esta  suma  no  parese  de  presente  renuncia  la  ley  9, 
titulo  1°,  partida  5a,  y  los  dos  anos  que  prefiere  para  la  prueva  del 
recibo,  los  que  da  por  pasados  como  si  lo  estubieren,  y  otorga  al  com- 
prador el  mas  eficas  resguardo  que  condusca  a  su  seguridad.  Ygual- 
mente  asegura  que  la  cantidad  de  mil  pesos  en  que  vende  esa  varra  es 
lo  que  ella  vale,  y  que  aunque  mas  valiere  del  exceso  cualquiera  que 
sea  hase  gracia  y  donacion  en  el  comprador  y  los  suyos  conforme  a 
derecho  renuncia  la  ley  2,  titulo  1°,  Libro  10  de  la  Novisima  Recopi- 
lacion  y  su  beneficia  de  los  cuatro  anos  para  pedir  la  recision  del  con- 
trato  o  suplemento  de  su  justo  valor,  los  que  da  por  pasados  como  si  lo 
estubieran.  En  consecuencia  se  desapodera  deciste  quita  y  aparta  de 
cualquiera  derecho  que  haya  tenido  y  tener  pueda  a  la  mencionada 
varra  y  accion  total  en  la  mina  pa.  que  como  propia  del  comprador  y 
adquira  con  legitimo  titulo  desempeile  esa  accion  en  lo  que  le  corres- 
ponde  y  se  posecione  de  ella  en  lo  judicial  6  estrajudicial  en  virtud  de 
este  instrumento.  Ygualmente  el  Senor  otorgante  se  obliga  a  la  evic- 
cion  y  saniamiento  de  esta  venta  asi  como  a  que  jamas  scrvira  de  ob- 
staculo  para  ella  el  articula  segundo  de  la  escritura  de  compania  que  se 
ha  incertado  pues  se  obliga  a  haser  pasar  y  consentir  en  esta  venta  a 
sus  consocios  asi  como  ha  consentido  y  pasado  el  Senor  otorgante  por 
las  que  han  hecho  sus  companeros,  y  a  este  efecto  ratifica  la  eviccion 
y  saniamiento  que  ofrese. 


163 

Siendo  presente  el  Senor  Don  Alejandro  Forbes  a  qui  en 

Aseptacion.       ,         «v  *  •  .       i  • ,  -i  •  •  *         . 

doy  fe  conoser  e  impuesto  de  esta  escntura  dyo :  que  por  si 
y  para  los  suyos  asepta  la  venta  que  se  le  hase  bajo  el  saniamiento  que 
se  ofrese  y  queda  obligado  como  accionista  de  la  mina  por  la  varra  que 
se  le  vende  a  cumplir  con  los  clemas  socios  en  lo  que  le  demarque  la 
ordenaza  del  ramo.  Y  al  cumplimiento  de  lo  espuesto  obligan  los  Se- 
nores  otorgantes  sus  bienes  presentes  y  futuros  con  sumicion  y  renun- 
ciaeion  de  las  leyes  y  privilegios  que  sean  de  su  favor  y  defensa  para 
ser  estrechados  segun  derecho  como  si  fuera  por  sentencia  pasada  en 
autoridad  de  cosa  jusgada.  Asi  lo  otorgaron  y  firmaron  siendo  testigos 
Don  Ramon  Ponse,  Don  Francisco  de  los  Rios  y  Don  Santos  Gallegos 
presentes  doy  fe. 

JOSE  CASTRO, 
ALEJANDRO  FORBES, 
JESUS  VEGAR. 


E.  R.— «  de  ellos  "—vale. 

Concuerda  con  sus  originales  que  obran  desde  la  foja  cuarenta  y  seis 
a  la  cuarenta  y  nueve  la  primera  escritura,  la  segunda  desde  la  foja 
ciento  cuarenta  y  dos  a  la  ciento  cuarenta  y  cinco :  la  tercera  desde  la 
ciento  cincuenta  y  una  a  la  ciento  cincuenta  y  cinco,  y  la  Cuarta  desde 
la  ciento  sesenta  y  siete  a  la  ciento  sesenta  y  una,  todo  del  Libro  pro- 
tocol del  ano  ultimo  donde  se  saco  y  corrigio  en  estas  dies  y  siete 
fojas  del  sello  1°  y  4°  y  por  segunda  vez  a  peticion  del  Sefior  compra- 
dor Don  Alejandro  Forbes.  Y  en  fe  de  ello  lo  signo  y  firmo  en  Tepic 
a  dies  y  siete  de  Agosto  de  mil  ochocientos  cuarenta  y  ocho. 

JESUS  VEGAR. 


De  las  cuatro  varras  que  se  espresan  en  esta  escritura  se  han  ven- 
dido  dos  por  el  propietario  a  las  Senores  Barron,  Forbes  y  compania 
segun  la  que  ante  mi  pasien  esta  fecha. 

Tepic  Abril  once  de  mil  ochocientos  cuarenta  y  nueve. 

JESUS  VEGAR. 

'  Alcalde  1°  constitucional,  y  Escribano  Publico  que  firmamos.  Cer- 
tificamos  y  damos  fe  que  el  signo  y  firma  que  antecede  el  que  usa  y 
acostumbra  el  Escribano  Don  Jesus  Vegar  en  todos  los  actos  que  ante 
el  pasan. 


164 

Asi  lo  comprobamos  en  Tepic  a  quince  de  Marzo  cle  mil  ochocientos 
cincuenta. 

LORETO  CORONA. 
EUSEBIO  FERNANDEZ. 


Consulate  of  the  United  States. 
I,  George  W.  P.  Bissell,  Consul  of  the  United  States  of  North 
America,  for  this  district,  hereby  certify  that  the  signatures  attached 
to  the  foregoing  document,  are  in  the  hand  writing  of  the  subscribers, 
who  legally  hold  the  situations  therein  represented,  and  are  worthy  of 
all  faith  and  credit.  In  testimony  whereof,  I  hereunto  set  my  hand 
and  seal  of  office,  in  the  city  of  Tepic,  this  first  day  of  December,  in 
the  year  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  fifty. 


Consulate  )  G.  W.  P.  BISSELL 


Seal      \  U.  S.  Consul. 


San  Bias. 


The  original  of  the  foregoing  document  is  written  on  Mexican  sealed 
paper,  and  stamped,  S.  A.  Clark,  Recorder,  by  E.  Lewis,  Deputy. 
Filed  for  record,  at  10g  o'clock,  A.  M.,  April  1st,  A.  D.,  1854,  S.  A. 
Clark,  Recorder.  Recorded  by  F.  Lewis,  Deputy.  Recorded  at  re- 
quest of  J.  A.  Forbes ;  S.  A.  Clark,  Recorder,  by  F.  Lewis,  Deputy. 


Recorder's  Office,  County  of  Santa  Clara,  Cal.,  ) 
May  11th,  A.  D.  1857.  \ 

I  hereby  certify  that  the  foregoing,  on  pages  1,  2,  8,  4,  5,  6,  7,  8, 
9,10,  11,  12,  13,  14,  15,  16,  17,  18,  19,  20  and  21,  of  this,  is  a  full, 
true  and  correct  copy  of  an  instrument  of  record  in  this  office,  recorded 
in  book  G  of  Deeds,  on  pages  257,  258,  259,  260,  261,  262,  263, 
264,265,  266  and  267. 

Note. — The  word  "  vende  "  erased  page  5,  line  6  ;  words  "  se 
saque  "  erased,  page  7,  line  9  from  top  ;  "  que  "  interlined  page  9, 
line  5  from  top  ;  "  Castro  "  erased  and  "  Pico  "  interlined  on  page  12, 
line  from  bottom ;  "  cuanto "  erased  page  13,  line  14  from  top  ; 
"  vende  "  interlined  same  page,  6  line  from  bottom  ;  "  que  le  corres- 
pondieron  sigue  dicien  doel  mismo  Don  Jose  Castro  que  de  las  dichas 
cuatro  varras,"  interlined  on  page  17,  line  15  from  top  ;  "  el"  erased 
on  page  20,  line  10  from  tho  bottom. 


165 

Given  under  my  hand  and  official  seal,  at  office  in  the  city  of  San 
Jose,  the  day  and  year  last  written. 

S.  A.  CLARK, 

i/-*-**-^  ^  County  Recorder. 

seal     [  By  Geo.  M.  Yoell,  Deputy.    * 


Endorsed,  Jose*  Castro  to  Alex.  Forbes,  "  0.  H.  No.  28 1-2." 


DEPOSITION  OF  JAMES  W.  WEEKS. 

UNITED  STATES  DISTRICT  COURT,  ) 

Northern  District  of  California.       j 
The  United  States  ) 
vs.  > 

Andres  Castillero.  ) 

San  Francisco,  June  24, 1857. 
On  this  day,  at  1 1-2  o'clock,  P.  M.,  before-  J.  Edgar  Grymes, 
a  Special  Commissioner  and  Referee  of  the  United  States  for  the  North- 
ern District  of  California,  duly  authorized  to  administer  oaths,  &c, 
&c,  came  James  W.  Weeks,  a  witness  produced  on  behalf  of  the 
United  States,  in  Case  No.  420,  being  an  appeal  from  the  Board  of 
Commissioners  to  ascertain  and  settle  the  private  land  claims  in  the 
State  of  California,  in  Case  No.  366  on  the  Docket  of  the  said  Board 
of  Commissioners,  and  was  duly  sworn,  and  testifies  as  follows  : 

Present: — H.  W.  Halleck,  Esq.,  of  counsel  for  claimant,  and  the 
U.  S.  District  Attorney,  P.  Delia  Torre,  Esq. 

Questions  by  U.  S.  District  Attorney. 

1st  Ques. — What  is  your  name,  age  and  place  of  residence  ? 

1st  Ans. — James  W.  Weeks,  44  years  old,  and  I  reside  in  the 
Pueblo  of  San  Jose\ 

2d  Ques. — Who  was  Alcalde  of  the  Jurisdiction  of  San  Jose*  on  the 
21st  of  January,  1848? 

2d  Ans. — I  believe  I  was  1st  Alcalde. 

3d  Ques. — Have  you  any  recollection  of  an  application  having  been 
made  to  you,  as  Alcalde,  about  that  time,  to  make  an  examination  of 
the  New  Almaden  mine,  and  to  mark  out  the perteneneias  of  the  mine  ? 

(Objected  to  as  leading.) 

3d  Ans. — I  have. 

4th  Ques. — Who  made  that  application  to  you? 


166 

4th  Ans. — James  Alexander  Forbes. 
5th  Ques. — What  did  you  do  upon  that  application  ? 
5th  Ans. — I  proceeded  to  the  mine,  and  examined  the  mine,  and 
saw  the  pertenancias  marked  out,  and  gave  possession. 

(Objected  to  as  incompetent  and  irrelevant  testimony.) 

6th  Quest. — Bid  you  make  any  written  order  or  decree  upon  the 
subject  ? 

6th  An3. — Yes,  sir. 

7th  Ques. — How  did  you  enter  that  order  or  decree  ? 

7th  Ans. — I  entered  it  in  the  book  of  Archives  in  the  office. 

8th  Ques. — Do  you  know  where  the  book  now  is  ? 

8th  Ans. — I  believe  it  is  in  the  office  of  the  County  Recorder  of 
Santa  Clara  County. 

9th  Ques. — Was  the  entry  in  that  book  the  original? 

9th  Ans. — The  original  Mr.  Forbes  had  ;  that  was  a  copy.  I  mean 
James  Alex.  Forbes. 

10th  Ques. — What  was  the  custom  in  the  Alcalde's  office,  in  enter- 
ing orders  and  decrees  ;  was  it  to  enter  them  in  a  book  and  retain  the 
book  as  containing  the  original,  and  give  copies  from  the  book  to  per- 
sons interested,  or  was  it  to  deliver  the  originals  drawn  on  sheets  of 
paper,  and  retain  a  copy  in  the  book  ? 

(Question  objected  to  as  leading.) 

10th  Ans. — It  was  customary  to  deliver  the  original  and  make  a 
copy  in  the  book,  and  make  copies  from  the  book  when  required. 

11th  Ques. — Do  you  know  whether  or  not  the  book  in  which  you 
entered  the  decree  in  that  matter,  is  the  same  book  which  is  designat- 
ed as  "  Book  No.  2,"  in  the  office  of  the  Recorder  in  Santa  Clara 
County  ? 

11th  Ans. — I  believe  it  is. 

12th  Ques. — Please  examine  the  paper  now  shown  you,  marked 
"  G.  M.  Y."  and  say  whether  or  not  it  is  a  copy  of  your  decree  in 
this  matter. 

12th  Ans. — It  appears  to  be  a  copy. 

(Question  and  answer  objected  to  on  the  ground  that  it  is  incompe- 
tent to  prove  the  contents  of  the  original  document  by  parole  testimony.) 

13th  Ques. — Were  you  acquainted  with  Mr.  Alexander  Forbes  of 
Tepic  ? 

13th  Ans. — Yes,  sir. 

14th  Ques. — Where  were  you  acquainted  with  him  ? 


167 

14th  Ans. — In  California. 

15th  Ques. — Where  was  he  at  the  time  you  examined  the  mines  on 
this  occasion  ? 

15th  Ans. — He  was  with  us. 

16th  Ques. — What  other  persons  were  present  at  the  mines  on  that 
occasion  ? 

16th  Ans. — I  had  with  me  two  assisting  witnesses,  Antonio  Maria 
Pico  and  Pedro  Sepeda  ;  both  Mr  Alexander  and  Mr.  James  Alexan- 
der Forbes  were  present,  and  I  believe  Mr.  Walkinshaw  was  present, 
but  I  do  not  recollect. 

17th  Ques. — What  was  Mr.  Alexander  Forbes  doing  there  ? 

17th  Ans. — I  believe  he  was  one  of  .he  owners  of  the  mine. 

18th  Ques. — Did  you  take  these  proceedings  on  a  verbal  applica- 
tion or  a  written  one  ? 

18th  Ans. — I  do  not  recollect,  but  I  think  it  was  a  written  one. 

19th  Ques. — Please  look  at  the  paper  now  shown  to  you,  marked 
"J.  W.  W."  hereto  attached,  and  say  whether  or  not  you  recognize 
it  to  be  a  copy  of  the  petition  addressed  to  you  in  this  matter,  and  upon 
which  you  made  yonr  decree. 

(Question  objected  to  as  incompetent,  no  proper  foundation  being 
laid  by  proving  that  any  original  ever  existed,  or  if  one  existed,  its 
loss  has  not  been  accounted  for.) 

19th  Ans. — I  have  no  doubt  but  this  may  be  a  copy  of  that  which 
was  presented  to  me. 

20th  Ques. — After  having  read  the  paper  just  exhibited  to  you,  and 
refreshed  your  recollection  on  the  subject,  please  state  whether  or  not 
the  written  petition  was  presented  to  you,  and  whether  or  not  this 
paper  is  a  copy  of  that  petition  ? 

20th  Ans. — I  am  not  certain  whether  this  is  the  paper  or  a  copy — 
this  may  be  the  paper  presented  to  me  or  a  copy. 

21st  Ques. — Is  it  either  the  one  or  the  other  ?  Is  it  either  the  orig- 
inal or  the  copy  ? 

21st  Ans. — It  appears  tome  to  be  a  copy.  It  says  "  copy  "  on  top. 
This  is  in  James  Alexander  Forbes'  writing. 

22d  Ques. — In  whose  hand-writing  was  the  original  petition  ? 

2 2d  Ans. — In  James  Alexander  Forbes'. 

23d  Ques. — In  whose  hand-writing  was  the  original  decree  that  you 
made  upon  the  subject  ? 

23d  Ans. — I  believe  it  was  in  James  Alex.  Forbes'  writing  likewise. 
He  wrote  it  all. 

24th  Ques. — After  making  the  decree  and  entering  it  in  the  book, 
what  did  you  do  with  the  original  petition  and  decree  ? 

24th  Ans. — I  do  not  recollect  to  whom  I  delivered  the  petition ;  I 
may  have  delivered  it  to  James  Alex.  Forbes.  I  delivered  the  decree 
to  him. 


168 

25th  Ques. — Is  it  probable  that  you  did  deliver  him  the  original 
petition  also  ?  What  would  have  been  the  usual  and  customary  course 
in  disposing  of  the  original  papers  ? 

25th  Ans. — Sometimes  they  would  retain  the  original  memorials, 
and  sometimes  they  would  deliver  them  to  the  parties. 

26th  Ques. — When  retained  what  was  done  with  them  ? 

26th  Ans. — Placed  with  other  papers  in  the  archives  ;  sometimes 
entered  in  the  books,  sometimes  put  away  loose. 

27th  Ques. — Where  are  the  archives  of  the  Alcalde  of  the  juris- 
diction of  San  Jose*  ? 

27th  Ans. — I  believe  they  are  in  the  Recorder's  office  of  Santa 
Clara  County  ;  some  of  them  in  the  mayor's  office  in  the  city  of  San 
Jose*. 

28th  Ques. — When  you  made  that  decree,  did  you  make  any  map 
or  plan  of  the  pertenencias  of  the  mine,  as  described  in  the  decree. 

28th  Ans. — I  have  no  recollection  whether  I  did  or  not. 

29th  Ques. — What  did  James  Alex.  Forbes  have  to  do  with  the 


mine 


(Objected  to  as  incompetent  and  irrelevant.) 
29th  Ans.. — I  believe  he  was  one  of  the  partners. 
Cross-Examination. 

30th  Ques. — Are  you  certain  that  any  written  petition  was  present- 
ed to  you  in  the  case  referred  to  in  your  direct  examination  ? 

30th  Ans. — I  believe  there  was.     It  strikes  me   that  there  was  : 
so  long  ago  that  I  cannot  remember. 

JAMES  W.  WEEKES. 

Sworn  to  and  subscribed  before  me,  June  24th,  1857. 

J.  EDGAR  GRYMES, 

Special  Commissioner. 


EXHIBIT  "  J.  W.  W." 

COPIA. 

Senor  Juez  de  Paz: 

Alejandro  Forbes,  a  nombre  de  Simisuco,  y  de  sus  consocios 
dueno  de  la  mina  de  plata,  oro  y  azogue  conocida  con  el  nombre  de 


169 

Santa  Clara  y  ahora  llamada  Nuevo  Almaden  y  a  nombre  de  la  com- 
pania  formada  para  su  laborio  y  avio  de  la  misma.  Ante  V.  como  mas 
haya  lugar  en  derecho  expongo  que  la  ordenanza  de  mineria  en  su  titulo 
IX,  Art0.  10,  previene  que  toda  mina  debe  visitarse  y  examinarse  por 
peritos  nombrador  por  el  Juez,  a  fin  de  cerciorarse  si  son  trabajadas 
conforme  a  dicha  ordenanza.  Y  deseando  el  que  firma  cumplir  con 
las  leyes,  a  V.  como  Juez  competente  (por  falta  del  tribunal  a  quien 
le  toca  entender  en  la  materia)  le  suplico  se  sirva  de  pasar  con  los  tes- 
tigos  de  su  asistencia  a  la  expresada  mina  a  imprecionar  las  obras  y 
labores  de  ella,  ahora  en  corriente,  conforme  la  ordenanza  de  la  mate- 
ria ;  como  tambien  a  reconocer  el  rumbo  y  echado  de  la  veta  de  la 
enunciada  mina,  a  su  actual  profundidad  con  el  objeto  de  reformar  y 
enmendar  (pues  hay  lugar  para  ello)  los  terminos  de  la  primera  acta 
de  posesion,  y  para  corregir  tambien  cualquiera  otra  equivocacion  que 
en  ella  paresca :  segun  el  titulo  VIII,  Art0. 11  de  la  misma  ordenanza, 
particularmente  a  decidir  el  aumento  de  pertenencias  que  deben  poseer 
los  duenos  de  la  citada  mina,  y  su  habilitador  por  si  mismo  y  como 
representante  de  aquellos,  y  la  cuadra  que  correspond©  a  las  dichas 
pertenencias,  conforme  al  verdadero  echado  de  la  veta. 

Por  lo  que.  A.  Y.  suplico  se  sirva  demandar  proveer  el  presente 
escrito  en  los  terminos  expuestos,  y  practicadas  que  sean  las  diligen- 
cias,  que  se  me  devuelvan  para  el  debido  resguardo  y  fines  que  con- 
vengan  a  los  interesados  sirviendo  de  admitir  este  en  papel  simple,  por 
falta  total  del  sellado  en  este  departamento.  Pueblo  de  San  Jose,  19 
de  Enero,  1848. 


DEPOSITION  OF  ANTONIO  MARIA  PICO. 

UNITED  STATES  DISTRICT  COURT,  ) 

Northern  District  op  California.      \ 

The  United  States  ) 

vs.  > 

Andres  Castillero.  ) 

San  Francisco,  June  24th,  1857. 
On  this  day,  3  o'clock  P.  M.,  before  J.  Edgar  Grymes,  a  Special 
Commissioner  and  Referee  jbf  the  United  States  for  the  Northern  Dis 
trict  of  California,  authorized  to  administer  oaths,  &c,  &c,  came  An- 
tonio Maria  Pico,  a  witness  produced  on  behalf  of  the  United  States,  in 
Case  No.  420,  being  an  appeal  from  the  Board  of  Commissioners  to 
ascertain  and  settle  private  land  claims  in  the  State  of  California,  in 
Case  No.  366  on  the  Docket  of  the  said  Board  of  Commissioners,  and 
19 


170 

was  duly  sworn  and  testified  as  follows — his  evidence  being  interpret- 
ed, (by  consent  of  attorneys)  by  J.  Edgar  Grymes,  Commissioner. 

Present: — U.  S.  District  Attorney,  and  H.  W.  Halleck,  Esq., 
for  Claimants. 

Questions  by  U.  S.  District  Attorney. 

1st  Ques. — What  is  your  name,  age,  and  place  of  residence  ? 

1st  Ans. — My  name  is  Antonio  Maria  Pico,  48  years,  and  I  reside 
in  San  Jose'. 

2d  Ques. — Do  you  know  anything  about  an  application  made  by  Mr. 
Alexander  Forbes,  in  January,  1848,  to  the  Justice  of  the  Peace  or 
Alcalde,  for  an  examination  of  the  New  Almaden  mine,  and  the  meas- 
urement of  pertenencias,  or  the  proceeedings  of  James  W.  Weekes,  as 
Alcalde,  upon  such  an  application  ?   if  yes,  state  what  you  know. 

(Question  objected  to.) 

2d  Ans. — Mr.  Weekes  was  at  the  mine,  and  I  was  with  him  as  a 
witness ;  there  was  also  another  witness,  whose  name  I  do  not  remem- 
ber, and  the  two  Forbes',  the  younger  and  the  elder.  They  were 
measuring  the  mouth  of  the  mine  with  a  cord ;  after  that  we  went  to 
the  hacienda,  and  James  Alexander  Forbes  wrote  out  a  decree  ;  eve- 
rything was  done  that  was  necessary,  and  we  signed  the  document. 

(Question  and  answer  objected  to  as  irrelevant  and  incompetent  tes- 
timony.) 

3d  Ques. — Were  any  other  persons  present  but  those  you  have 
named  ? 

3d  Ans. — There  were  some  other  persons,  but  I  do  not  remember 
who  they  were. 

4th  Ques. — Was  Mr.  Robt.  Walkinshaw  there  ? 

4th  Ans. — I  do  not  remember  if  he  was  there — I  think  he  was. 

5th  Ques. — Did  you  measure  anything  else  beside  the  mouth  of  the 
mine  ? 

5th  Ans. — Yes,  sir :  they  measured  200  by  700  varas,  that  is  what 
I  think. 

6th  Ques. — What  did  they  measure  200  by  700  varas  for  ? 

6th  Ans. — I  do  not  know  what  they  measured  for — I  believe  it  was 
for  information. 

7th  Ques. — Do  you  know  at  whose  request  the  Alcalde  went  there  ? 

7th  Ans. — He  went  there  at  the  request  of  the  owners. 

8th  Ques. — Did  you  see  any  papers  there  ? 

8th*Ans. — Yes,  I  saw  those  that  Mr.  Forbes  was  making. 


171 

9th  Ques. — Who  were  present  when  Mr.  Forbes  drew  up  the 
decree  ? 

9th  Ans. — Those  who  went  there.  I  do  not  remember  who  they 
were.     Their  names  ought  to  be  on  the  paper. 

10th  Ques. — Did  you  read  it  ? 

10th  Ans. — Mr.  Forbes  read  it  in  my  presence. 

11th  Ques. — Look  upon  the  paper  marked  "  G.  M.  Y."  now  shown 
you,  and  say  whether  or  not  it  is  a  copy  of  the  decree  to  which  you 
refer . 

11th  Ans. — Yes,  sir,  it  appears  to  be  the  same. 

12th  Ques. — Examine  the  paper  now  shown  to  you,  marked  "  J.  W. 
W.",  and  say  whether  or  not  you  ever  saw  the  original  of  which  this 
is  a  copy. 

12tb  Ans. — I  do  not  remember  if  I  ever  saw  this  paper  before.  It 
is  in  the  hand-writing  of  Forbes.  I  remember  that  Forbes  was  pres- 
ent, but  I  do  not  recollect  this  paper.     I  recollect  the  other  paper. 

13th  Ques. — Did  you  ever  know  a  man  called  Clemente  Luquin  or 
Laquin  ? 

13th  Ans. — I  do  not  recollect. 

(10th  and  11th  questions  and  answers  objected  to  as  incompetent 
to  prove  the  contents  of  papers  referred  to  :  the  other  questions  and 
answers  severally  objected  to  as  having  reference  to  matters  which 
are  irrelevant  and  incompetent  testimony  in  this  case.) 

Cross-Examination. 

14th  Ques. — Do  you  know  of  your  own  knowledge,  who  requested 
the  Alcalde  to  go  to  the  New  Almaden,  as  stated  in  your  direct  ex- 
amination ? 

14th  Ans. — I  know  that  it  was  Mr.  Alexander  Forbes. 
-  15th  Ques. — Do  you  know  of  your  own   knowledge  that  he  made 
the  request"? 

15th  Ans. — I  do. 

16th  Ques. — How  do  you  know  that  he  made  the  request  ? 

16th  Ans. — Because  I  was  there  when  he  asked  him. 

17th  Ques. — Where  was  he  when  he  made  the  request  ? 

17th  Ans. — I  have  said  that  it  was  at  the  mine  ;  Forbes  was  there 
also. 

18th  Ques. — Was  the  request  made  at  the  time  the  Alcalde  was 
present  at  the  mine,  or  before  ? 

18th  Ans. — I  am  not  certain  if  it  was  before  or  at  the  mine  itself. 

19th  Ques. — Was  it  made  verbally  or  in  writing  ? 

19th  Ans. — It  was  in  writing. 

ANTONIO  Ma.  PICO. 


172 

Sworn  to  and  subscribed  bofore  me,  June  24th,  1857. 

J.  EDGAR  GRYMES, 
Special  Commissioner. 
Endorsed : — Filed  July  18,  1857,    John  A.  Monroe,  Clerk, 

By  W.  H.  Ciievers,  Deputy. 


[H.  L.,  No.  3  ;  "  0.  H.  No.  28."] 

DEED — S.    &   J.    T.    ROBLES   TO   FORBES. 

En  la  Mision  de  Santa  Clara  de  la  Alta  California  a  las  catorce  del 
mes  de  setiembre  de  mil  ochocientas  cuarenta  y  siete.  Ante  mi  Yg- 
nacio  Alvisu  Juez  de  Paz  de  esta  Jurisdiccion  y  ante  los  testigos  de  un 
asistencia  con  quienes  actuo,  en  forma  divida  a  falta  de  Notario  Publi- 
co comparecieron,  en  sus  propias  personas  Don  Secundino  Robles  y 
Don  Jose*  Teodoro  Robles  naturales  de  esta  California,  a  quieres  doy 
fe  conosco  y  dijeron  que  por  si  y  a  nombre  de  sus  hijos  herederos  y 
sucesores  y  de  quienes  de  ellos  hubiese  titulo  voz  y  cansa  en  cualquie- 
ra  manera.     Venden  y  dan  en  Venta  Solemne  y  enagenacion  perpetua 

I  todos  sus  derechos  y  acciones  en  dos  varras  en  cada  una  de  las  feres, 

[  pertenencias  de  la  mina  de  Azogue  de  Almaden  de  Santa  Clara  con 
todos  los  privilegios  gracias  concesiones  y  premios  cle  cualquiera  natu- 
ralesa  que  sean  hechas  a  los  socios  de  la  citada  mina  por  el  Gobierno 
Mejicano,  y  en  fin  todo  el  derecho  que  anexo  sea  a  las  espresadas  dos 
varras.  D.  Diego  Alejandro  Forbes  vice  consul  de  S.  M.  B.  para 
Californias  y  declaran  y  aseguran  los  enunciados  Don  Secundino  Ro- 
bles, Don  Jose*  Teodoro  Robles  no  tener  enaganadas  ni  bendidas  las 
espresadias  dos  barras  ni  parte  algunas  de  ellas,  en  la  citada  mina  de 
Azogue  de  Almaden  de  Santa  Clara,  y  que  en  su  totalidad  estan 
libres  de  todo  gravamen  perpetuo  temporal  general  tacito  y  espreso 
vinculo  tributo  y  fianaz  y  como  tal  se  las  venden  con  todo  el  derecho 
anexo  a  ello  en  precio  y  cantidad  de  tres  mil  ocho  sientos  sesenta  pe- 

I  sos,  (3860  Pesos)  que  les  tiene  entregados  el  comprador  y  los  otor- 
gartes  ban  resibido  a  su  entera  satisfaccion  y  asi  mismo  declaran  que 
su  justo  precio  y  verdadero  valor  de  las  esperesadas  dos  varras,  en  ca- 
da una  de  las  pertenencias  con  todos  los  derechos  e  acciones  asesas  a 
ellas  segun  queda  esplicado  son  los  mencionados.     Tres  mil  ocho  cien- 

\^  tos  sesenta  pesos  (3860  Pesos,)  y  que  no  valen  mas  y  que  en  caso  de 
que  mas  valgan  o  valer  puedan  del  exceso  en  poca  6  mucha  suma,  lo 
ceden  en  el  comprador  sus  hijos  herederos  y  sucesores,  gracia  y  dona- 
cion  pura  perfecta  6  irrevocable  que  en  derecho  se  llama  intervivos  con 
insinuacion  y  demas  primeras  legales,  con  la  circunstancia  de  que  desde 
hoy  en  adelunte : — para  siempre  jamas  las  enunciadas  dos  Varras,  en 
cada  una  de  las  tres  pertenencias  de  la  citada  mina  de  Azogue  de  Al- 
maden de  Santa  Clara  con  todos  los  derechos  y  acciones  que  les  son 


173 

anexas,  son  de  la  legitima  propriedad  del  espresado.  Don  Diego  Ale- 
jandro Forbes  y  quien  le  represento.  Y  los  enunciados  Don  Secundi- 
no  Robles  y  Don  Jose"  Teodoro  Robles  renuncian  las  leyes  que  tratan 
de  Contratos  compras  y  ventas  teneques  y  cambios  y  de  otras  en  que 
hay4esion  en  mas  o  menos  de  la  mitad  del  justo  precio  y  desde  hoy  en 
adelante  para  siempre  jamas  se  desapoderan  quitan  y  apartan  y  a  sua 
hijos  herederos  y  sucesores  y  cualquiera  de  ellos  del  dominio  propie- 
dad  posesion  titulo  voz  y  recurso  competar,  a  las  enunciadas  dos  varas 
en  cada  una  de  las  tres  pertenencias  (segun  y  conforme  esplicada  Ena, 
en  este  documento)  en  la  citada  mina  de  Azogue  las  renuncian  ceden 
y  traspasan  en  el  comprador  y  en  quien  le  represento,  para  que  las 
posea  trabaje  use  disfrute  gose*  cambio  enagene  y  disponga  de  ellas  a 
su  elecion  como  de  cosa  suya  adquirida  con  legitimo  y  justo  titulo  y  le 
contiesen  poder  irrevocable  con  libre  parroca  y  general  administracion 
constituyendole  procurador  en  su  propia  causa.  Y  para  la  exacta  ob- 
servancia  de  todo  lo  referido  y  paja  el  sostenimiento  del  comprador  y 
sus  tienderos  en  el  goze  pacifico  de  la  enunciada  finca  se  obligan  los 
otorgantes  con  sus  bienes  habidos  y  por  haber  y  con  ellos  se  someten  a 
los  tres  Jueces  y  Justicias  que  de  sus  causas  puedan  y  deran  conocer 
conforme  a  derecho  para  que  a  su  cumplimiento  les  compilan  y  apre- 
mien  como  por  sentencia  definitiva  consentida  y  pasada,  en  cosa  Jus- 
dado,  que  por  el  caso  les  favorescan,  e  cuyo  testimonio  asi  lo  ortogaron 
y  por  no  saber  firman  hicieron  la  seilal  de  la  Santa  Clara  ante  mi  el 
precitado  jues  y  los  testigos  de  que  doy  fe\ 

SECUNDINO  ROBLES,  IGNACIO  ALVISU,  x 

JOSE  TEODORO  ROBLES,  Jues  Auxiliar. 

AGUSTIN  DESFORGES,Asistencia. 

As.  EUSEBIO  SALERIDON. 

Recorder's  Office,  County  of  Santa  Clara,  California,  ) 

May  11th,  A.  D.  1857.  J 

I  hereby  certify  that  the  foregoing,  on  pages  1,  2  and  3  of  this,  is  a 

full,  true  and  correct  copy  of  an  Instrument  of  record  in  this  office, 

recorded  in  Book  2,  of  Deeds,  on  pages  269,  270  and  271. 

Given  under  my  hand  and  official  seal,  at  the  City  of  San  Jose",  the 

day  and  year  last  written. 

S.  A.  CLARK,  County  Recorder, 

)  By  Geo.  M.  Yoell,  Deputy. 

seal  (  J  J 


H.  L.,  No.  4 ;  "0.  H.,  No.  30 

DEED S.  &  J.  T.  ROBLES  TO  R.  WALKINSHAW. 

This  indenture  made  and  entered  into  this  fourteenth  day  of  ^ April 
A.  D.  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  forty-eight  in  the  Mission  of 


174 

Santa  Clara,  territory  of  California,  by  and  between  James  Alex. 
Forbes  of  the  same  place  in  the  name  and  stead  of  Jose  Teodoro 
Robles  and  Secundino  Robles  of  the  territory  of  California  aforesaid 
of  the  first  part  and  Robert  Walkinshaw  presently  residing  at  the 
mines  of  New  Almaden  of  the  second  part  Witnesseth,  that  the 
said  James  Alex.  Forbes  being  fully  authorized  by  letters  of  attorney 
to  him  duly  granted  by  the  aforesaid  Jose*  Teodoro  Robles,  Secundino 
Robles,  bearing  date  the  twenty-sixth  of  March,  1846,  for  and  in  con- 
sideration of  the  sum  of  Seven  thousand  Dollars  lawful  money  to  be 
paid  to  him  by  the  said  Robert  Walkinshaw,  of  the  second  part,  in  the 
following  manner  to  wit,  one  thousand  Dollars  in  hand  paid,  the  re- 
ceipt of  which  is  hereby  acknowledged,  and  six  thousand  Dollars  in  two 
installments  or  payments,  one  of  which  of  three  three  thousand  Dollars  to 
be  paid  at  six  months,  and  one  of  four  thousand  Dollars  to  be  paid  at  nine 
months — both  from  the  date  of  these  presents,  has  granted  bar- 
gained sold  and  conveyed  and  by  these  presents  doth  grant  bargain 
sell  and  convey  unto  the  said  Robert  Walkinshaw  party  of  the  second 
part  and  to  his  heirs  and  assigns  forever  all  the  right,  title  and  inter- 
est of  the  aforesaid  Josd  Teodoro  Robles  and  Secundino  Robles  to 
two  twenty-fourth  shares  or  barras  in  the  Quicksilver  mines  of  New 
Almaden  de  Santa  Clara,  now  in  operation  under  contract  of  Alex- 
ander Forbes,  Esquire,  Sf.  and  under  the  immediate  management  of 
the  said  Robert  Walkinshaw  with  all  and  singular  the  rights  priv- 
ileges and  Product  thereunto  belonging  or  in  any  wise  appertaining  to 
the  said  two  twenty-fourth  shares  or  parts  of  the  whole  of  the  afore- 
said mine  of  New  Almaden  de  Santa  Clara  of  which  the  said  Jose* 
Teodoro  Robles  and  Secundino  Robles  became  part  proprietors  in  Nov. 
1845,  By  grant  from  Andres  Castillero  as  is  fully  set  forth  in  a  docu- 
ment under  that  date  archived  in  the  records  of  the  town  of  San  Jose'; 
To  have  and  to  hold  the  said  two  twenty-fourths  of  the  whole  of  the 
said  mine  of  New  Almaden  de  Santa  Clara  the  said  Robert  Walkin- 
shaw his  heirs  and  assigns  forever  ;  and  the  said  James  Alex.  Forbes 
does  hereby  consent  and  agree  one  the  part  of  the  said  Jose  Teodoro  Ro- 
bles and  Secundino  Robles  to  warrant  and  defend  the  said  party  of  the 
second  his  heirs  and  successors  in  the  use,  benefit  and  behoof  of 
the  Product  of  the  aforesaid  and  two  twenty-fourths  of  the  said  mine  of 
New  Almaden  de  Santa  Clara  against  all  persons  whomsoever.  In 
testimony  whereof  the  said  James  Alex.  Forbes,  attorney  for  the 
said  Jose  Teodoro  Robles  and  Secundino  Robles  has  hereunto  placed 
his  hand  and  seal  the  day  and  date  above  written. 

Witnesseth,  JAMES  ALEX.  FORBES. 

Antonio  Senas  ;  Massimore  Fernandes. 

District  of  San  Jose,  SS. —  On  this  tenth  day  of  July,  A.  D. 
1848,  before  me  personally  came  James  Alex.  Forbes,  to  me  known 


175 

to  be  the  person  described  in  and  who  executed  the  foregoing  convey- 
ance, and  exhibited  to  me  his  power  of  attorney  authorizing  him  to 
make  and  execute  the  foregoing  instrument,  and  at  the  same  time  he 
acknowledged  the  execution  of  the  same  for  the  purposes  therein  men- 
tioned. K.  H.  DIMMICK, 

1st  Alcalde. 

Recorder's  Office,  Santa  Clara  County,  California,  ) 

July  28th,  A.  D.  1857.  j 

I  hereby  certify  that  the  foregoing,  on  pages  1,  2  and  3  of  this, 
contains  a  true  and  correct  copy  of  an  instrument  now  of  record  in 
this  office,  and  recorded  in  Book  5  of  Deeds,  pages  137  and  138. 

Witness  my  hand  and  official  seal,  at  office  in  the  city  of  San  Jose*, 
the  day  and  date  last  written. 

S.  A.  CLARK,  County  Recorder, 

By  Geo.  M.  Yoell,  Deputy. 

SEAL 


(H.  L.  No.  5.    "  0.  H.  No.  31.") 

DEED — J.  M.  REAL  TO  R.  WALKINSHAW". 

En  la  Mision  de  Santa  Clara,  a  las  nueve  dias  del  mes  de  Agosto, 
de  mil  ochocientos  cuarenta  y  nueve  ante  mi  Jorge  Bellamy,  Alcalde 
auxiliar  de  la  jurisdiccion  del  Pueblo  de  San  Jose'  de  Guadalupe,  y 
testigos  de  asistencia  comparecio  el  Reverendo  Padre  Fray  Jose' 
Maria  del  Refugio  Zuares  del  Real,  a  quien  dey  fe  conosco  y  dijo : 
que  a  virtud  de  un  contrato  de  compania  celebrado  entre  el  S.  D. 
Andres  Castillero,  Sr.  Don  Jose  Castro,  Don  Teodoro  y  Don  Secun- 
dino  Robles,  el  dos  de  Noviembre,  de  mil  ochocientos  cuarenta  y  cinco 
le  corresponden  y  pertenece  en  derecho  de  donacion  perpetua  cuatro 
barras  en  una  mina  de  plata  con  ley  de  oro  y  azogue,  cituacla  segun 
se  expresa  en  el  espedieete  de  Registro,  en  pertenencias  del  rancho 
de  Don  Jose  Reyes  Berreyesa,  en  la  misma  jurisdiccion  ties  de  cuyas 
cuatro  varas  el.  Potorgante  vendio  y  enageno  al  Sr.  Don  Alejandro 
Forbes  per  escritura  de  ventas  del  mes  de  Enero  de  mil  ochocientos 
cuarenta  y  ocho.  Que  ahora  y  en  su  caracter  de  accionista  en  la 
dicho  mina  de  la  manera  mencionada,  y  en  la  via  y  forma  que  mejor 
haya  lugar  en  derecho  otorga,  que  por  si  sus  herederos  y  sucesores 
a  virtud  de  cualesquier  derecho  caracter  o  titulo  que  fuera,  da  en 
venta  y  enagenacion  real  y  perpetua  a  Dn  Roberto  Walkinshaw 
vecino  de  esta  jurisdicion  para  si  y  para  los  suyos  la  citada  una  vara 


176 

que  aim  le  pertenece  en  donacion  perpetua,  en  la  referida  mina  que 
en  su  titulo  de  registro,  se  conoce  con  el  nombre  de  la  de  Santa  Clara, 
y  actualmte  por  la  del  Nuevo  Almaden.  Que  trasfiere  en  el  es- 
presado  Dn  Roberto  Walkinshaw  el  derecho  util  y  recto  de  la 
espresada  varra  con  todos  sus  usos  aprovachamientes  y  servidumbres : 
con  los  frutos  y  productos  que  a  ella  corresponden  y  pertenecen,  desde 
y  posterior  a  el  diez  y  siete  de  Deciembre  de  mil  ocho  cientos 
cuarenta  y  seis  con  poder  a  reclamar  los  mismos  en  el  poder  de  cual- 
quiera  persona  existen,  con  cuanto  mas  en  derecho  le  pueda  tocar  y 
pertenecer  pues  todo  lo  cede  y  traspasa  en  el  mencionado  Sr.  Dn 
Walkinshaw.  Y  declara  el  otorgante  que  la  varra  que  enagena  es 
libre  de  todo  gravamen  general  y  particular  tacito  y  espres  como  asi 
la  asegura,  y  la  venta  de  ella,  y  de  sus  frutos  y  productos  como  arriba 
se  espresa,  se  hace  en  la  cantidad  de  cinco  mil  pesos  en  moneda  cor- 
riente,  que  confiesa  haber  recibido  a  toda  su  satisfaccion.  Que  es- 
presamente  renuncia  el  beneficio  de  la  ley  9  tit.  1°  partida  5a  d  ig- 
ualmente  la  ley  2a  tit  la  Libro  10,  de  la  novisima  Recopilacion  como 
de  cualquier  otra  ley  que  favoresca  su  derecho  a  pedir  prueba  del 
recibo  del  valor  a  la  reversion  de  este  contrato,  brajo  del  protesto  que 
fuera.  En  consequeneia  se  desapodera  desiste  y  aparta  de  cualquier 
derecho  que  haya  tenido  y  tener,  pueda  a  la  mencionada  varra  para 
que  como  propria  del  comprador  y  adquerida  de  legitimo  titulo,  des- 
empene  la  accion  que  en  ella  le  corresponde  ;  y  se  posecione  de  ella 
en  lo  judicial  6  estrajudicial  en  virtud  de  este  instrumento. 

Igualmente  el  otorgante  se  obliga  a  la  eviccion  y  sanamiento  de  esta 
venta,  como  asi  que  jamas  servira  de  obstaculo  para  ella  el  art0  se- 
gundo  de  citado  contrato  de  compania.  Y  estando  presente  Dn 
Roberto  Walkinshaw  a  quien  doy  fe  conozco  y  impuesto  de  esta  es- 
critura  dijo  que  por  se  y  para  los  suyos  accepta  la  venta  que  se  le 
hace  bajo  el  sanamiento  que  se  le  ofrece  y  queda  obligado  como  ac- 
cionista  de  la  espresada  mina  en  la  varra  que  se  le  vende,  a  cumplir 
los  demas  socios  en  conformidad  a  las  leyes.  Y  al  cumplimiento  de  la 
esprusto  obligan  los  otorgantes  sus  bienes  presentes  y  futuros  con 
sumision  y  renunciasion  de  las  leyes  y  priveligios  que  sea  en  su  favor 
y  defensa  para  ser  estrechados  como  si  fuera  por  setencia  pasada  en 
autoridad  de  caso  juzgada  y  firmaron  siendo  testigos,  Dn  Jesus  Herre- 
ra  y  Dn  Fran00  Arce. 


Fr.  J.  Ma  del  R.  J.  del  Real. 


De  asa  Francisco  Arce, 
De  asa  Jesus  Herrera. 


GEO.  W.  BELLAMY, 

Alcalde. 

ROBERT  WALKINSHAW. 


177 

Recorder's  Office,  County  of  Santa  Clara,    ) 
California,  May  11,  A.  D.  1857.       \ 
I  hereby  certify,  that  the  foregoing,  on  pages  1,  2  and  3  of  this,  is 
a  full,  true  and  correct  copy  of  an  instrument,  of  record  in  this  office, 
recorded  in  book  5,  on  pages  178  and  179. 

Given  under  my  hand  and  official  seal,  at  the  city  of  San  Jose"  the 
day  and  year  last  written. 

S.  A.  CLARK, 
County  Recorder. 


[H.  L.  No.  6.     0.  H.  No.  29.] 

POWER  OF  ATTORNEY — ALEX.  FORBES  TO  JAS.  ALEX.  FORBES. 

(Duplicate.) — Know  all  men  by  these  presents  that  I  Alexander 
Forbes  a  British  subject  at,  present  residing  in  the  city  of  Tepic  in 
the  Republic  of  Mexico  in  my  own  name  and  in  the  name  of  the  com- 
pany established  for  the  working  of  the  mine  of  New  Almaden  or  Santa 
Clara,  in  Upper  California  have  made  constituted  and  appointed  and 
by  these  presents  do  make  constitute  and  appoint  James  Alex. 
Forbes  of  Santa  Clara  in  California  my  true  and  lawful  attorney  for 
me  and  in  my  name,  and  in  the  name  and  stead  of  the  company  afore- 
said to  demand  and  receive  possession  of  the  said  mine  of  New  Alma- 
den, from  whosoever  may  be  in  the  management  or  possession  thereof 
with  all  the  ores  utensils  houses  and  all  and  everything  thereto- 
ing  appertaining  hereby  authorizing  my  said  attorney  to  direct 
and  work  the  same  for  my  account  and  for  account  of  the  foresaid 
company  in  such  manner  as  shall  appear  to  my  said  attorney  to  be  for 
the  interest  of  all  concerned,  and  in  conformity  with  the  instructions  to 
that  effect  given  and  I  hereby  in  my  own  name  and  in  a  name  of 
the  company  aforesaid  delegates  to  him  my  said  attorney  my  full  and 
entire  power  and  authority  in  the  premises,  to  demand  accounts,  re- 
cover debts  receive  all  funds  belonging  to  me  or  to  the  aforesaid  com- 
pany or  to  the  said  mine  to  demand  the  same  at  law  or  equity  to 
name  and  appoint  managers  and  laborers  to  remove  the  same  and  to 
perform  all  such  lawful  acts  deeds  matters  and  things  therein  as  may 
be  requisite  and  necessary  in  as  large  full  and  ample  a  mariner  as  I 
myself  might  or  could  do  were  I  personally  present  and  acting  there- 
in in  my  own  proper  person  or  as  if  my  said  attorney  was  thereto 
more  fully  and  especially  authorized  with  full  and  ample  powers  of 
substitution  and  revocation  at  his  own  will  and  pleasure,  hereby  en- 
gaging to  ratify  and  confirm  all  and  whatsoever  my  said  attorney  or 
his  substitute  or  substitutes  shall  or  may  lawfully  do  or  cause  to  be 
done  in  the  premises  under  or  by  virtue  of  these  presents.     In  testi- 


178 

mony  whereof,  I  have  set  set  my  hand  and  seal  to  these  presents  this 
twenty-third  day  of  April,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight 
hundred  and  forty-nine. 


ALEX.  FORBES.  seal 


Joaquin  Andrade,  Witness. 
Wm.  E.  Barron,  Witness. 


Infras  exitos  escribanos  publicos  certificamos  que  las  centeniones 
firmas  son  propias  de  los  sessones  Don  Alejandro  Forbes  Don  Joaquin 
Andrade  y  Don  Guillenio  E.  Barren,  las  mismas  que  usan  entodas  sus 
negocios  En  cuya  comprabasion  sentamos  la  presente  en  Tepic  a  diez 
y  nueve  de  Mayo  de  mil  ochocientos  cuarenta  y  nueve. 

PANFILO  SOLIS. 
JESUS  VEGAS. 

I  hereby  certify  that  the  foregoing  signatures  are  in  the  true  hand- 
writing of  the  subscribers  who  held  the  situations  represented  and 
who  are  worthy  of  all  faith  and  credit. 

Given  under  my  hand  and  seal  of  office,  in  the  city  of  Tepic,  this 
19th  day  of  May,  1849. 

|  seal  |  ESTACE  W.  BARREN, 

' *  Consul. 

The  above  is  a  true  copy  of  the  original,  given  under  my  hand 
this  twenty. sixth  day  of  September,  A.  D.  1849. 

C.  T.  RYLAND, 

Recorder. 

Recorder's  Office,  County  of  Santa  Clara,  ) 
California,  May  11,  A.  D.  1857.        J 

I  hereby  certify  that  the  foregoing,  on  pages  1,2,  and  8,  of  this, 
is  a  full,  true  and  correct  copy  of  an  instrument,  of  record  in  this 
office,  recorded  in  book  5,  on  pages  284  and  285. 

Given  under  my  hand  and  official  seal,  at  the  city  of  San  Jose,  the 
day  and  year  last  written. 

|  seal  I  S.  A.  CLARK, 

*  — —  *  County  Recorder. 


179 

[H.  L.  No.  7.  "  0.  H.  No.  36."] 

DEED — J.  A.  FORBES  TO  JOHN  PARROTT. 

This  indenture  made  and  entered  into  this  ninth  day  of  August  in 
the  year  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  fifty,  by  and  between 
James  A.  Forbes  of  Santa  Clara  in  the  State  of  California  of  the 
first  part,  and  John  Parrott  of  San  Francisco,  of  the  same  State  of 
the  second  part  witnesseth.  That  the  said  party  of  the  first  part  for 
and  in  consideration  of  the  sum  of  twenty-four  thousand  dollars 
($24,000)  lawful  money  of  the  United  States  of  America  to  him  in 
hand  paid  by  the  said  party  of  the  second  part,  at  or  before  the  en- 
sealing and  delivery  of  these  presents  the  receipt  whereof  is  hereby 
acknowledged,  hath  granted,  bargained,  sold  aliened,  remised,  con- 
veyed, and  confirmed,  and  by  these  presents  doth  grant,  bargain,  sell, 
alien,  remise,  release,  convey  and  confirm  unto  the  said  party  of  the 
second  part  and  to  his  heirs  and  assigns  for  ever,  One  entire  and  un- 
encumbered "Barra"  or  Twenty-fourth  part  of  the  Quicksilver  Mine  of 
New  Almaden  in  the  County  of  Santa  Clara  State  of  California. 
Together  with  all  and  singular  the  lands  tenements  hereditaments 
and  appurtenances  thereunto  belonging  or  in  anywise  appertaining, 
and  the  reversion  and  reversions,  remainder  and  remainders,  rents 
issues  and  profits  thereof.  And  also  all  the  Estate  right  title  in- 
terest property  possession  claim  and  demand  whatsoever,  as  well  in 
law  as  in  equity  of  the  party  of  the  first  part,  of,  in  and  to  the 
party  of  the  first  part,  of  and  to  the  above  described  Twenty-fourth 
part  of  the  said  Mine,  with  its  appurtenances.  To  have  and  to  hold 
all  and  singular  the  above  mentioned  twenty-fourth  part  of  the  said 
mine  and  its  appurtenances  unto  the  said  John  Parrott  party  of  the 
second  part,  his  heirs  and  assigns  for  ever.  And  the  said  James  A. 
Forbes  party  of  the  first  part  and  his  heirs  the  said  twenty-fourth 
part  of  the  said  Mine  in  the  quiet  and  peaceable  possession  of  the 
said  party  of  the  second  part  his  heirs  and  assigns  against  the  said 
party  of  the  first  part  &  his  heirs,  and  against  all  and  every 
person  or  persons  whomsoever  lawfully  claiming  or  to  claim  the 
same,  shall  and  will  Warrant  and  by  these  presents  for  ever  defend. 

In  witness  whereof,  the  said  party  of  the  first  part  hath  hereunto 
set  his  hand  and  seal  the  day  and  year  above  written. 

JAMES  ALEXR.  FORBES. 

Sealed  and  delivered  in  the  presence  of 

Wm.  E.  Barron, 
Bernard  Peyton,  Jr. 


180 

State  op  California,    \ 
County  of  San  Francisco,  j  ss 

On  this  ninth  day  of  August,  A.  D.  1850,  before  me,  a  Notary 
Public  in  and  for  said  county,  personally  came  James  A.  Forbes, 
known  to  me  to  be  the  person  described  in  and  who  executed 
the  foregoing  conveyance,  and  acknowledged  that  he  executed 
the  same  freely  and  voluntarily,  for  the  uses  and  purposes  therein 
mentioned. 

Witness  my  hand  and  seal  of  office, 

JN0  McVICKAR, 
Notary  Public,  San  Francisco  Co. 

SEAL   ' 


lied  for  record  6}  o'clock,  A.  M.,  17  Aug.  1850. 

J.  T.  RICHARDSON, 

Recorder,  S.  C.  C. 

Recorder's  Office,  County  of  Santa  Clara, 
California,  May  11,  A.  D.   1857. 

I  hereby  certify,  that  that  the  foregoing,  on  pages  one  and  two  of 
this,  is  a  full,  true  and  correct  copy  of  an  instrument,  of  record  in 
this  office,  recorded  in  book  A.  of  deeds,  on  page  336. 

Given  under  my  hand  and  official  seal,  at  the  city  of  San  Jose*,  the 
day  and  year  last  written. 

S.  A.  CLARK, 
County  Recorder. 

SEAL 


[H.  L.  No.  8.    "  0.  H.  No.  39."] 

DEED — J.  A.  FORBES  TO  H.  LAURENCEL. 

Know  all  men  by  these  presents,  that  I,  James  Alexander  Forbes 
of  Santa  Clara  Upper  California  for  and  in  consideration  of  the  sum  of 
Five  Thousand  Four  Hundred  Dollars,  to  me  in  hand  paid  by  Henry 
Laurencel  Esq.  of  San  Francisco,  the  receipt  of  which  sum  I  do 
hereby  acknowledge,  have  granted  bargained  sold  and  quit-claimed 
and  by  these  presents  do  bargain  sell  and  quit-claim  unto  the  said 
Honry  Laurencel  Esq.  his  heirs  and  assigns  for  ever,  all  my  right 


181 

title  and  interest  claim  and  demand,  both  at  law  and  in  equity,  as 
well  in  possession  as  in  expectancy  of  in  and  to,  Three  Twentieth 
parts  of  one  share  or  one  Twenty-fourth  part  of  the  Quicksilver  mine 
of  New  Almaden  situated  in  the  County  of  Santa  Clara,  Upper 
California,  with  all  and  singular  the  hereditaments  and  appurtenances 
thereunto  belonging. 

In  witness  whereof  I  have  placed  my  hand  and  seal  this  tenth 
day  of  September  A.  D.  one  thousand  and  Eight  hundred  and  Fifty. 

JAS.  ALEXR.  FORBES. 

Witness : 
A.  C.  Campbell. 

State  of  California,        ) 
County  of  Santa  Clara.     \  s  ' 

Be  it  remembered  that  on  this  the  25th  day  of  September  1850, 
before  me  appeared  James  Alex.  Forbes,  personally  known  to 
me  to  be  the  person  described  in  and  who '  executed  the  foregoing 
Peed,  and  acknowledged  that  he  executed  the  same  freely,  voluntarily, 
and  for  the  uses  and  purposes  therein  mentioned. 

In  witness  whereof,  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  affixed  my 
private  seal,  there  being  no  official  seal,  the  date  last  above  written. 

JOHN  T.  RICHARDSON. 
By  A.  C.  CAMPBELL, 
Deputy  Recorder. 

SEAL 


Filed  for  record  7  o'clock,  A.  M.,  27  Sept.  1850. 

T.  J.  RICHARDSON, 

Recorder. 

Recorder's  Office,  County  of  Santa  Clara,     ) 
California,  May  11,  A.  D.  1857.  j 

I  hereby  certify,  that  the  foregoing,  on  pages  one  and  two  of  this, 
is  a  full,  true  and  correct  copy  of  an  instrument,  of  record  in  this 
office,  recorded  in  book  B,  of  deeds,  on  pages  118  and  119. 

Given  under  my  hand  and  official  seal,  at  the  city  of  San  Jose*,  the 
day  and  year  last  written. 

S.   A.  CLARK, 
County  Recorder. 


182 

[H.  L.  No.  9.    "  0.  H.  No.  38."] 

DEED — H.  LAURENCEL  TO  BOLTON  BARRON  &  CO. 

Know  all  men  by  these  presents:  that  I,  Henry  Laurencel  of  the 
city  of  San  Jose  county  of  Santa  Clara  and  State  of  California,  for 
and  in  consideration  of  the  sum  of  Three  Thousand  Dollars,  to  me  in 
hand  paid  by  James  R.  Bolton  and  William  Barron,  composing  the 
firm  of  Bolton  Barron  &  Company,  in  the  city  of  San  Francisco, 
State  of  California,  the  receipt  whereof  is  hereby  acknowledged,  have 
bargained  granted,  sold  released  conveyed  and  transferred,  and  by 
these  presents  do  grant  bargain,  sell,  release,  convey  and  transfer 
unto  the  said  James  R.  Bolton  and  William  Barron,  their  heirs  and 
assigns  Three  twentieths  of  one  "barra"  or  of  one  Twenty-fourth  part, 
of  the  mine  of  New  Almaden,  situated  in  the  said  County  of  Santa 
Clara,  together  with  all  the  lands  tenements,  hereditaments,  privi- 
leges and  appurtenances  thereunto  belonging :  To  have  and  to  hold 
the  above  granted  land  and  property  unto  the  said  James  R.  Bolton 
and  William  Baron  their  heirs  and  assigns  to  their  use  and  behoof 
for  ever.  And  I  do,  for  myself,  my  heirs,  executors  and  administra- 
tors, covenant  and  agree  with  the  said  Bolton  and  Barron,  their  heirs 
and  assigns  in  manner  and  form  following,  that  is  to  say :  that  the 
above  described  property  is  free  from  all  incumbrances,  had,  made, 
done  or  suffered  by  me  or  by  any  person,  claiming  or  to  claim  by,  from 
or  under  me  ;  and  that  I  will,  and  my  heirs  executors  and  administra- 
tors shall  warrant  and  for  ever  defend  the  same  unto  the  said  Bolton 
and  Barron,  their  heirs  and  assigns  against  any  person  lawfully  claim- 
ing or  to  claim,  by  from  or  under  me,  or  by  any  of  my  act,  means, 
assent  or  procurement. 

In  testimony  whereof  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  seal,  this 
22nd  day  of  March  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight 
hundred  tmd  fifty-one. 

H.  LAURENCEL.  X  seal 


ss. 


Signed  sealed  &  delivered  in  presence  of 

H.  W.  Halluck. 

State  of  California, 
County   of  Santa  Clara. 


On  this  22d  day  of  March,  A.  D.  1851,  before  me  John  Flournoy, 
Deputy  Recorder  in  &  for  the  aforesaid  county  personally  came  H. 
Laurencel,  known  to  me  to  be  the  person  whose  name  is  subscribed 
to  the  foregoing  instrument,  &  acknowledged  that  he  executed  the 
same,  freely,  voluntarily,  and  for  the  uses  and  purposes  therein  set 
forth. 

I  testimony  whereof,  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  affixed  my 


183 

private  seal,  (there  being  as  yet  no  official  seal  provided,)  at  office, 
this  day  and  date  last  above  written. 

r j  JOHN  FLOURNOY, 

J  seal  J  Deputy  Recorder,  in  and  for 

* '  said  County. 

Filed  9  35-60  o'clock,  A.  M.,  22d  March,  1851. 

T.  J.  Richardson,  Rec. 
J.  Flournoy,  Deputy. 

Recorder's  Office,  Santa  Clara  County, 
Chlifornia,  July  28,  A.  D.  1857. 

I  hereby  certify  that  the  foregoing,  on  pages  1  and  2  of  this,  con- 
tains a  true  and  correct  copy  of  an  instrument  now  of  record  in  this 
office,  and  recorded  in  book  C,  of  Deeds,  on  pages  330  and  331. 

Witness  my  hand  and  official  seal  at  office,  in  the  city  of  San  Jose*, 
the  day  and  date  last  written.  S.  A.  CLARK, 

County  Recorder. 

j j  By  GEO.  M.  YOELL, 

j  seal  (  Deputy. 


[H.  L.  No.  10.     "0.  H.  No.  39."] 

DEED — BOLTON  &  BARRON   TO  J.  E.  FERNANDEZ. 

Know  all  men  by  these  presents  that  We,  James  R.  Bolton  and 
Wm.  Barron  of  the  firm  of  Bolton  Barron  &  Co.,  of  San  Francisco 
California  for  and  in  consideration  of  the  sum  of  Six  thousand 
Dollars,  ($6000)  to  us  in  hand  paid  by  Jose*  E.  Fernandez  also  of 
San  Francisco,  the  receipt  whereof  is  hereby  acknowledged  have 
bargained  granted  sold  released  conveyed  and  transferred,  and  by 
these  presents  do  bargain  grant  sell  release  convey  and  transfer 
unto  the  said  Jose  E.  Fernandez  his  heirs  and  assigns,  three  twen- 
tieths (3-20ths)  of  one  Barrowr,  or  of  one  twenty-fourth  part  of  the 
Quicksilver  mine  of  New  Almaden  situated  in  the  County  of  Santa 
Clara  in  this  State,  together  with  all  the  lands,  tenements  heredita- 
ments privileges  and  appurtenances  thereunto  belonging.  Also  all 
and  singular  the  Quicksilver  now  in  possession  or  in  expectancy  which 
as  owners  of  the  three-twentieths  of  one  barra  of  the  said  mine  of 
New  Almaden  we  now  are  or  may  become  entitled  to  in  any  manner 
whatsoever,  from  the  10th  day  of  September  A.  D.  1850,  to  the 
date  of  this  Instrument,  the  aforesaid  three-twentieths  of  one  Barra 
of  the  said  mine  of  New  Almaden  and  appurtenances  being  the  same 
conveyed  to  H.  Laurencel  by  James  Alexr.  Forbes  on  the  10th  day 


184 

of  September,  A.  D.  1850,  and  by  said  H.  Laurencel  conveyed 
to  us,  on  the  22nd  day  of  March  A.  D.  1851,  recorded  in  Book 
of  Deeds  "C,"  page  330,  in  the  Archives  of  Santa  Clara  County,  and 
confirmed  by  said  James  A.  Forbes  and  his  wife  to  us,  as  per  Deed  of 
the  same  date,  22d  day  of  March,  A.  D.  1851,  recorded  in  book  of 
Deeds  'C  page  368,  in  the  same  archives  of  Santa  Clara  county.  To 
have  and  to  hold  the  three-twentieths  of  one  Bara  of  the  said  mine 
of  New  Almaden  and  appurtenances  and  all  and  singular  the  Quick- 
silver to  the  same  belonging  or  appertaining  unto  the  said  Jose  E. 
Fernandez  his  heirs  or  assigns  to  his  and  their  own  use  and  behoof 
for  ever.  And  we  the  said  James  R.  Bolton  and  Wm.  Barron  com- 
posing the  firm  of  Bolton,  Barron  &  Co.,  in  this  City  do  hereby  cove- 
nant and  agree  to  and  with  the  said  Jose  E.  Fernandez  his  heirs  and 
assigns  that  the  above  described  property  is  free  from  all  incum- 
brances made  incured,  or  suffered  by  us  or  any  other  person  or 
persons  whomsoever,  by  us  authorised  or  empowered  and  we  shall 
ours  heirs  executors  or  assigns  warrant  and  defend  the  aforesaid 
property  for  ever  unto  the  said  Jose  E.  Fernandez,  his  heirs  execu- 
tors and  assigns  against  the  lawfull  claims  and  demands  of  all  persons 
claiming  or  to  claim,  by  through  or  under  us,  but  against  none  others. 
In  witness  whereof  we  have  hereunto  set  our  hand  and  seal  at  San 
Francisco  on  this  thirtieth  day  of  April  A.  D.  one  thousand  eight 
hundred  and  fifty-two. 

JAMES  R.  BOLTON,      [seal.] 
Wm.  E.  BARRON.  [seal.] 

Signed,  sealed  and  delivered  in  the  presence  of 

Luc.  Herman. 

On  this  30th  day  of  April,  A.  D.  1852,  before  me  a  Notary 
public,  duly  commissioned  &  sworn  for  the  County  of  San  Francisco, 
personally  came  James  R.  Bolton  &  William  Barron,  known  to  me 
to  be  the  persons  described  in  and  who  executed  the  foregoing  Instru- 
ment, &  who  acknowledged  to  me  that  they  executed  the  same 
freely  and  voluntarily  for  the  uses  k  purposes  therein  mentioned. 
Witness  my  hand  and  seal  at  office. 

LUC.  HERMAN. 

Not.  Pub. 

SEAL 


Filed  11  o'clock,  A.  M.,  May  10th,  A.  D.  1852. 

JOHN  M.  MURPHY, 

Recorder. 
Recorded  at  the  request  of  Marcelo  Carero. 

J.  M.  MURPHY, 
Recorder. 


185 

Recorder's  Office,  County  of  Santa  Clara,     \ 
California,  May  11th,  A.  D.  1857.  \ 

I  hereby  certify,  that  the  foregoing,  on  pages  1,  2  and  3,  of  this, 
is  a  full,  true  and  correct  copy  of  an  instrument  of  record  in  this 
office,  recorded  in  book  D,  of  Deeds,  on  pages  507  and  508. 

Given  under  my  hand  and  official  seal,  at  the  city  of  San  Jos6,  the 
day  and  year  last  written. 

, }  S.  A.  CLARK, 

J  seal  (  •  County  Recorder. 


[H.  L.  No.  11.     "  0.  H.  No.  40."] 

DEED — J.  E.  FERNANDEZ  TO  J.  F.  DE  LEON. 

Know  all  men  by  these  presents  that  I,  Jose  E.  Fernandez,  of  the 
city  of  San  Francisco  State  of  California,  for  and  in  consideration  of 
the  sum  of  ($6000,)  six  thousand  dollars  to  me  in  hand  paid  by  Jose 
Francisco  Leon  of  the  same  place  the  receipt  whereof  is  hereby  ac- 
knowledged, have  granted  bargained,  sold,  released,  conveyed  and 
transferred,  and  by  these  presents  do  grant  bargain,  sell,  release,  con- 
vey and  transfer  unto  the  said  Jose  Francisco  Leon  his  heirs  and 
assigns  (3-20ths)  Three-twentieths  of  one  "Barra"  or  of  one  twenty- 
fourth  part  of  the  Quicksilver  mine  of  New  Almaden,  situated  in  the 
County  of  Santa  Clara,  and  State  aforesaid,  together  with  all  the  lands, 
tenements,  hereditaments,  privileges  and  appurtenances  thereunto 
belonging,  also  all  the  Quicksilver  now  in  possession  or  in  expectancy 
which  as  owner  of  the  said  three  twentieths  of  one"  Barra"  of  the  mine 
of  New  Almaden,  I  now  am  or  may  become  entitled  to  in  any  manner 
whatsoever  until  this  fourteenth  day  of  April,  A.  D.  one  thousand 
eight  hundred  and  fifty-three.  The  aforesaid  three  twentieths  of  one 
"Barra"  jo£  the  said  mine  of  New  Almaden  and  appurtenances  being 
the  same  conveyed  to  H.  Laurencel  by  James  Alexander  Forbes  on 
the  10th  day  of  September,  A.  D.  1850,  and  by  said  H.  Laurencel 
conveyed  to  J.  R.  Bolton  and  Wm.  Barron  on  the  22d  March,  A.  D. 
1851,  recorded  in  Book  of  Deeds  'C,'  page  330,  in  the  archives  of 
Santa  Clara  County,  and  confirmed  to  them  by  said  James  A.  Forbes 
and  his  wife  as  per  deed  of  same  date,  22d  March,  1851,  recorded 
in  Book  of  Deeds  'C,'  page  368,  in  the  same  archives  of  Santa  Clara 
County,  and  conveyed  to  me  the  said  J.  E.  Fernandez,  by  the  said 
Bolton  and  Barron  on  the  30th  day  of  April,  1852,  as  recorded  in 
Book  of  Deeds  D,  page  507  by  J.  W.  Murphy,  Recorder.  To  have 
and  to  hold  the  Three  twentieths  of  one  "Barra"  of  the  said  mine  of 
20 


186 

New  Almaden  and  appurtenances,  and  all  and  singular  the  Quicksilver 
to  the  same  appertaining  or  to  me  as  owner  thereof  in  anywise  belong- 
ing, up  to  the  date  hereof,  unto  the  said  Jose*  Francisco  Leon  his  heirs 
and  assigns,  to  his  and  their  sole  and  only  proper  use  benefit  and  behoof 
forever.  And  I  the  said  Jose*  Eusebio  Fernandez  do  hereby  cove- 
nant and  agree  to  and  with  the  said  Jose*  Francisco  Leon  his  heirs 
and  assigns  that  the  above  described  property  is  free  from  all  incum- 
brances made  incurred  or  suffered  by  me,  or  any  other  person  or 
persons  by  me  authorised  or  empowered  and  that  I,  my  heirs  execu- 
tors and  assigns  shall  and  "will  warrant  and  for  ever  defend  the  afore- 
said property  unto  the  said  Jose*  Francisco  Leon  his  heirs  and  assigns 
against  the  lawful  claims  and  demands  of  all  persons  claiming  or  to 
claim  by  through  or  under  me  or  them,  but  against  none  other. 

In  witness  whereof  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  seal  at  San 
Francisco  this  fourteenth  day  of  April  A.  D.  one  thousand  eight 
hundred  and  fifty-three. 

JOSE  E.  FERNANDEZ,      j  seal  J 

Sealed  and  delivered  in  presence  of 


FREDK.  GOERLITZ. 


State  of  Calieornia 
County  of  San  Fkanctsco. 


On  this  fourteenth  day  of  April,  A.  D.  one  thousand  eight  hundred 
and  fifty-three,  personally  appeared  before  me  a  Notary  Public,  in 
and  for  said  County  Jose  E.  Fernandez  known  to  me  to  be  the  person 
described  in  and  who  executed  the  foregoing  instrument  and  who  ac- 
knowledged to  me  that  he  executed  the  same  freely  and  voluntarily, 
and  for  the  uses  and  purposes  therein  mentioned. 

In  witness  whereof  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  affixed  my 
official  seal,  the  day  and  year  last  above  written. 

,  }  WILLM.  NEWTON  WEEKS, 

}  seal  [  Notary  Public. 


Filed  for  record  at  4  o'clock,  P.  M.,  July  15th,  A.  D.  1853. 

J.  M.  MURPHY, 

Recorder, 
By  S.  0.  Houghton, 

Deputy. 
Recorded  at  the  request  of  J.  F.  Leon. 

J.  M.  MURPHY, 

Recorder, 
By  S.  0.  Houghton, 

Deputy. 


187 


Recorder's  Office,  County  of  Santa  Clara,    ) 
California,  May  11,  A.  D.  1857.      \ 

I  hereby  certify,  that  the  foregoing  on  pages  1,  2  and  3  of  this,  is 
a  full,  true  and  correct  copy  of  an  instrument,  of  record  in  this  office, 
recorded  in  book  F.  of  Deeds,  on  pages  216  and  217. 

Given  under  my  hand  and  official  seal,  at  the  city  of  San  Jose*,  the 
day  and  year  last  written. 

, j  S.  A.  CLARK, 

j  seal  J  County  Recorder. 


[H.  L.  No.  12.    "  0.  H.  No.  41."] 

DEED — J.  F.  DE  LEON  TO  JAS.  A.  FORBES — COPY. 

Know  all  men  by  these  presents,  that  I.  Jose*  Francisco  Leon,  of 
the  city  of  San  Francisco,  State  of  California,  for  and  in  consideration 
of  the  sum  of.  Eight  thousand  dollars,  to  me  in  hand  paid,  by  James 
Alexander  Forbes,  of  the  town  and  County  of  Santa  Clara,  State  of 
California,  the  receipt  of  which  is  hereby  acknowledged,  have  grant- 
ed, bargained,  sold,  released,  conveyed  and  transferred,  and  by  these 
presents  do  grant,  bargain,  sell,  release,  convey,  and  transfer,  unto  the 
said  James  Alexander  Forbes,  his  heirs  and  assigns  (3-20th)  three 
twentieths  of  one  "  barra,"  or  of  one  twenty-fourth  part  of  the  quick- 
silver mine  of  New  Almaden,  situated  in  the  County  of  Santa  Clara, 
and  State  aforesaid,  together  with  all  the  lands,  tenements,  heredita- 
ments, privileges  and  appurtenances  thereunto  belonging.  Also  all 
the  quicksilver  now  in  possession,  or  in  expectancy,  which  as  owner  of 
the  three  twentieths  aforesaid,  of  one  "  barra"-  of  the  said  mine  of 
New  Almaden,  I  now  am,  or  may  become  entitled  to,  in  any  manner 
whatsoever,  on  this  fourth  day  of  August  A.  D.  one  thousand  eight 
hundred  and  fifty  three.  The  aforesaid  three  twentieths  of  one 
"  barra  "  of  the  said  mine  of  New  Almaden  and  appurtenances,  being 
the  same  conveyed  to  H.  Laurencel,  by  James  A.  Forbes,  on  the  10th 
day  of  September  A.  D.  1850,  and  by  the  said  H.  Laurencel  convey- 
ed to  J.  R.  Bolton  and  Wm.  E.  Barron,  on  the  22d  of  March  A.  D. 
1851,  recorded  in  Book  of  deeds  C,  page  330,  in  the  archives  of 
Santa  Clara  County,  and  confirmed  to  them  by  said  James  A.  Forbes, 
and  his  wife  as  per  deed  of  same  date  22d  March  1851,  recorded  in 
Book  of  deeds  C,  page  368,  in  the  same  archives  of  Santa  Clara 
County  ;  and  by  them  the  said  Bolton  and  Barron  conveyed  to  J.  E. 
Fernandez  on  the  30th  day  of  April  1852  as  recorded  in  book  of 
df -la  D.,  page  507,  and  by  him  the  said  J.  E.  Fernandez,  convey- 


188 

ed  to  me  the  said  Jose  Francisco  Leon  by  deed  dated  the  fourteenth 
day  of  April  1853,  recorded  in  Book  of  deeds  F.,  pages  216  and  217, 
in  the  archives  of  Santa  Clara  County,  by  J.  M.  Murphy,  Recorder. 
To  have  and  to  hold  the  said  three  twentieths  of  one  "barra"  of  the 
said  mine  of  New  Almaden  and  appurtenances,  and  all  and  singular 
the  quicksilver  and  ores  to  the  same  appertaining,  or  to  me  as  owner 
thereof,  iu  anywise  belonging  up  to  the  date  hereof,  unto  the  said 
James  Alexander  Forbes,  his  heirs  and  assigns,  to  his  and  their  sole 
and  only  proper  use,  benefit  and  behoof  forever — And  I  the  said  Jose' 
Francisco  Leon,  do  hereby  covenant  and  agree  to  and  with  the  said 
James  Alexander  Forbes,  his  heirs  and  assigns,  that  the  above  de- 
scribed property  is  free  from  all  incumbrances,  made,  incurred  or  suf- 
fered by  me,  or  any  other  person  or  persons  by  me,  authorized  or  em- 
powered :  and  that  I,  my  heirs,  executors  and  assigns  shall  and  will 
warrant  and  forever  defend  the  aforesaid  property  unto  tha  said  James 
Alexr  Forbes,  his  heirs  and  assigns  against  the  lawful  claims  and 
demands  of  all  persons  claiming  or  to  claim  by,  through,  or  under  me 
or  them,  but  against  none  other.  In  witness  whereof  I  have  hereunto 
set  my  hand  and  seal  this  fourth  day  of  August  A.  D.  one  thousand 
eight  hundred  and  fifty-three,  in  the  city  of  San  Francisco. 


J.  FRANC0  de  LEON.  f Seal) 

Sealed  and  delivered  in  presence  of 

Thomas  Bell. 
State  of  California,  j 

County  of  San  Francisco.  ) 

On  the  fifth  day  of  August  in  tne  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand 
eight  hundred  and  fifty-three,  before  me  Joseph  Grant,  a  Notary  Pub- 
lic in  and  for  the  said  County,  duly  commissioned  and  sworn  dwelling 
in  the  City  of  San  Francisco,  personally  appeared  Jose'  Francisco  de 
Leon,  known  to  me  to  be  the  individual  who  executed  the  foregoing 
instrument,  and  acknowledged  that  he  executed  the  same  freely  and 
voluntarily  and  for  the  purposes  therein  mentioned. 

In  witness  whereof  I  have  hereto  set  my  name,  and  affixed  my  of- 
ficial seal,  the  day  and  year  above  written. 


f Seal]  JOSEPH  GRANT, 

^ '  Notary  Public. 

Filed  for  record  at  11|  o'clock  A.  M.,  August  8,  A.  D.  1853. 

J.  M.  MURPHY,  Recorder. 
Recorded  by  F.  Lewis,  Deputy. 
Recorded  at  the  request  of  J.  A.  Forbes. 

J.  M.  MURPHY,  Recorder, 
By  F.  LEWIS,  Deputy. 


189 

Recorder's  Office,  County  of  Santa  Clara,   ) 
California,  May  11,  A.  D.  1857         \ 

I  hereby  certify,  that  the  foregoing,  on  pages  1,  2,  3  and  4  of  this, 
is  a  full,  true  and  correct  copy  of  an  instrument  of  record  in  this  of- 
fice, recorded  in  Book  F.  of  deeds,  on  pages  270  and  271. 

Given  under  my  hand  and  official  seal,  at  the  city  of  San  Jose*,  the 
day  and  year  last  written. 


[  Seal  ] 


S.  A.  CLARK, 

County  Recorder. 


[H,  L.  No.  13.    "  0.  H.  No.  42."] 

DEED — J.  A.  FORBES  TO  W.  E.  BARRON — COPY. 

Know  all  men  by  these  presents,  that  I,  James  Alexr  Forbes, 
of  the  town  and  County  of  Santa  Clara,  State  of  California  in  consi- 
deration of  the  sum  of  Thirty-five  Thousand  dollars  to  me  in  hand  paid 
by  William  E.  Barron  of  the  City  and  County  of  San  Francisco,  and 
State  aforesaid  the  receipt  whereof  I  hereby  acknowledge  have  bar- 
gained sold  and  quit-claimed  and  by  these  presents  do  bargain  sell 
and  quit-claim  unto  the  said  William  E.  Barron  and  to  his  heirs  and 
assigns  forever,  all  my  right  title  interest  estate  claim  and  demand, 
both  at  law  and  in  equity  and  as  well  in  possession  as  in  expectancy 
of  in  and  to  one  "  Barra,"  or  one  twenty-fourth  share  of  the  Quick- 
silver Mine,  of  New  Almaden,  situated  lying  and  being  in  the  County 
of  Santa  Clara  and  State  aforesaid  with  all  and  singular  the  heredi- 
taments and  appurtenances  thereunto  belonging  or  in  anywise  apper- 
taining. 

In  witness  whereof,  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  seal,  the  thir- 
tieth day  of  March,  A.  D.  eighteen  hundred  and  fifty-five. 

JAS.  ALEX.  FORBES.         f  SealI 

Sealed  and  delivered  in  presence  of 

E.  S.  Benson. 


190 

State  of -California, 


County  of  San  Francisco.  c 

On  this  thirty-first  day  of  March,  A.  D.  one  thousand  eight  hun- 
dred and  fifty-five,  before  me  Edward  S.  Benson  a  Notary  Public  in 
and  for  said  County  personally  appeared  Jas.  Alexander  Forbes  to 
me  known  to  be  individual  described  in  and  who  executed  the  an- 
nexed instrument  and  acknowledged  that  he  executed  the  same  freely 
and  voluntarily  for  the  uses  and  purposes  therein  mentioned. 

In  witness  whereof  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  affixed  my  of- 
ficial seal  the  day  and  year  first  above  written. 

E.  S  BENSON, 
Notary  Public. 


Seal  I 


Filed  for  record  at  request  of  Wm.  E.  Barron,  at  10J  o'clock  A.  M., 
April  2d,  A.  D.  1855. 

S.  A.  CLARK,  Recorder. 
By  F.  Lewis,  Deputy. 

Recorder's  Office,  County  of  Santa  Clara,   j 
California,  May  11,  A.  D.  1857.        J 

I  hereby  certify,  that  the  foregoing,  on  pages  one  and  two  of  this, 
is  a  full,  true  and  correct  copy  of  an  instrument,  of  record  in  this  of- 
fice, recorded  in  Book  G.  of  deeds,  on  page  498. 

Given  under  my  hand  and  official  seal,  at  the  city  of  San  Jose*,  the 
day  and  year  last  written. 

, v  S.  A.  CLARK, 

I  Seal  ]  County  Recorder, 


[H.  L.  No.  14.] 

DEED — J.  A.  FORBES  TO  W.  E.  BARRON — COPY. 

Know  all  men  by  these  presents,  That  I,  James  Alex.  Forbes,  of 
the  town  and  County  of  Santa  Clara,  State  of  California  in  considera- 
tion of  the  sum  of  Thirty  Thousand  Dollars  to  me  in  hand  paid  by  Wil- 
liam E.  Barron  of  the  city  and  county  of  San  Francisco  and  State 
aforesaid,  the  receipt  whereof  I  hereby  acknowledge,  have  bargained 
sold  and  quit-claimed  and  by  these  presents  do  bargain  sell  and  quit- 
claim unto  the  said  William  E.  Barron  and  to  his  heirs  and  assigns 
forever,  all  my  right  title  interest  estate  claim  and  demand  both 
at  law  and  in  equity,  and  as  well  in  possession  as  in  expectancy  of,  in, 


191 

and  to,  One  Barra,  or  one  twenty-fourth  share  of  the  Quicksilver 
Mine-of  New  Almaden  situate  lying  and  being  in  the  said  County  and 
State,  including  all  my  right  title  interest  estate  claim  and  demand 
both  in  law  and  in  equity  as  well  in  possession  as  in  expectancy  to  the 
tract  of  land  granted  by  the  President  of  Mexico  to  Andres  Castillero, 
on  the  20th  day  of  May  A.  D.  1846,  described  in  the  order  or  de- 
cree issued  by  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  on  the  23d  May 
1846,  and  directed  to  the  Governor  of  California  being  two  leagues 
of  land  situate  in  the  County  and  State  aforesaid ;  the  same  one  twen- 
ty-fourth share  being  that  which  was  heretofore  conveyed  by  me  to 
the  said  William  E.  Barron,  on  the  Thirtieth  day  of  March  1855,  with 
all  and  singular  the  hereditaments  and  appurtenances  thereunto  be- 
longing. 

In  witness  whereof  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  seal  the  29th 
day  of  May  A.  D.  eighteen  hundred  and  fifty-five. 

JAS.  ALEX.  FORBES.  f Seal! 


I  Seal  j 


Sealed  and  delivered  in  presence  of 
State  op  California, 


E.  S.  Benson. 


County  of  San  Francisco.  ' 

On  this  twenty-ninth  day  of  May  A.  D.  one  thousand  eight  hun- 
dred and  fifty-five  before  me  Edward  S.  Benson  a  Notary  Public  in 
and  for  said  County,  personally  appeared  James  Alex.  Forbes,  to  me 
known  to  be  the  individual  described  in  and  who  executed  the  annex- 
ed instrument,  and  acknowledged  that  he  executed  the  same  freely 
and  voluntarily  for  the  uses  and  purposes  therein  mentioned. 

In  witness  whereof  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  affixed  my 
official  seal,  the  day  and  year  first  above  written. 

^Seal]  E.  S.  BENSON, 
'  Notary  Public. 

Filed  for  record  (at  request  of  S.  Hamilton)  at  9^  o'clock  A.  M., 
June  8th,  A.  D.  1855. 

S.  A  CLARK,  Recorder. 
By  F.  Lewis,  Deputy. 

Recorder's  Office,  County  of  Santa  Clara,   ) 
California,  May  11,  A.  D.  1857.        ) 

I  hereby  certify,  that  the  foregoing,  on  pages  one  and  two  of  this, 


192 

is  a  full,  true  and  correct  copy  of  an  Instrument,  of  record  in  this  of- 
fice, recorded  in  Book  Gr.  of  Deeds,  on  pages  52S  and  524. 

Given  under  my  hand   and  official  seal,  at  the  City  of  San  Jose', 
the  day  and  year  last  written.. 

r 


Seal]  S.  A.  CLARK, 
^  County  Recorder. 


[H.  L,  No  15.      "0.  H.  No.  44."] 

DEED — YECKER  TORRE  &  00.  TO  BARRON  FORBES  &  CO. 

En  la  ciudad  de  Mexico  a  siete  de  Diciembre  de  mil  ochocientos 
cincuenta  y  dos,  ante  mi  el  Escribano  Nacional  y  publico  del  numero 
y  testigos,  que  se  espresaran,  comparecieron  los  Seiiores  Yecker 
Torre  y  compania  de  esto  comercio,  de  una  parte ;  y  de  la  otra  el 
Seilor  Don  Eustaquio  Barron,  en  representacion  de  su  casa  de  "  Bar- 
ron Forbes  y  Compania,"  de  Tepic  por  la  que  presta  caucion  de  rato, 
et  grato  y  a  mayor  abundamiento  ofrece  que  se  ratificara,  alia  este 
contrato,  o  bien  presentara  dentro  de  un  mes  poder  bastante  en  esta 
capital,  para  efectuar  la  dicha  ratificacion ;  vecinos  los  Seiiores 
comparentes  de  esta  misma  capital  a  quienes  doy  fe  conozco  y  dijeron ; 
que  los  Seiiores  Yecker  Torre  y  Ca.  tenian  en  la  mina  y  negociacion 
de  azogue  llamada  el  Nuevo  Almaden,  sita  en  la  mision  de  Santa 
Clara  de  la  Alta  California,  tres  acciones  y  media  aviadoras  de  la  doce 
de  esta  clase  en  que  esta  dividida  la  propiedad,  y  cuatro  acciones 
once  decimas  cuartas  que  forman  el  total  de  las  acciones  aviadas  ; 
cuya  propiedad  consta  de  los  respectivos,  contratos  6  instrumentos  y 
de  los  recibos  de  los  pagos  que  han  hecho,  asi  como  de  las  cuentas  del 
avio  ;  y  que  en  conseqencia  de  su  dominio  y  propiedad,  hicieron  en 
veinte  y  siete  de  Noviembre  procsimo  pasado  a  los  Seiiores  Barron 
Forbes  y  Ca.  la  venta  de  las  espresadas  acc:ones  por  el  contrato  que 
me  exhiben  en  este  acto,  y  es  a  la  letra  como  siguie  Contrate  : 

Los  Seiiores  Yecker  Torre  y  Ca.  venden  a  los  Sres  Barron  For-s 
bes  y  Ca.  sus  cuatro  y  once  decimas  cuartas  partes  (4JJ  de  accione 
aviadas  y  las  tres  y  media  (3J)  acciones  aviadoras  de  la  mina  de 
N.  Almaden  en  la  Alta  California,  y  los  dividendos  que  a  dichas  ac- 
ciones correspondan,  y  ademas  su  interes  en  la  casa  de  comercio  de 
los  Sres  Bolton  Barron  y  Ca.  de  San  Francisco  de  California,  por 
la  cantidad  de  trescientos  ochenta  mil  pesos  fuertes  (380,000$)  pa- 
gaderos  en  esta  capital  del  modo  siguiente  : 

Ciento  ochenta  mil  pesos  (180,0001)  al  contado  qe  se  compensaran 


193 

con  igual  cantidad  qe  poco  mas  6  menos  existe  ya   en  manos  de  los 
vendedores  pertenecientes  k  la  negociacion  de  las  espresada  mina. 

Cien  mil  pesos  (100,000$)  a  los  tres  meses,  y  cien  mil  pesos 
(100,000$ )  a  los  seis  meses  contados  desde  esta  fecha. 

Los  Senores  Yecker  Torre  y  Ca.  daran  cuenta  a  los  Sres  Bar- 
ron Forbes  y  Ca.  de  todo  el  azogue  que  les  ha  sido  consignado  ya 
sea  poniendo  a  la  disposicion  de  los  segundos  las  existencias  que  hubi- 
ere  en  su  poder  6  en  el  de  sus  corresponsales,  6*  entregando  las  cuen- 
tas  de  las  cantidades  que  ellos  o  aquellos  hubiesen  vendido  con  poste- 
rioridad  a  la  ultima  cuenta  que  tienen  remitida  a  San  Francisco,  sea 
en  fin  en  reales  por  las  ventas  de  plazo  vencido. 

Los  Senores  Yecker  Torre  y  Ca.  quedan  mediante  esta  ventaescen- 
tos  de  saneamiento  en  cualquier  caso,  y  sin  responsibilidad  de  ninguna 
clase  por  lo  pasado  y  por  lo  futuro  tanto  respecto  de  la  mina  de  N. 
Almaden  como  respecto,  de  la  casa  de  San  Francisco,  y  solo  eontri- 
buiran  con  su  parte  en  los  gastos  de  la  mina  hasta  treinta  de  Septi- 
embre  procsimo  pasado  conforme  a  la  cuenta  de  avio  qne  los  Senores 
Bolton  Barron  y  Ca.  les  han  pasado  en  la  misma  fecha.  En  este  con- 
trato  no  se  comprende  las  demas  cuentas  que  existen  entre  la  casa  de 
San  Francisco  y  los  Sres  Yecker  Torre  y  Ca.,  quienes  satisfaran 
el  saldo  de  las  mismas  si  fuese  en  su  contra,  6  lo  percibiran  si  resultare 
a  su  favor. 

Los  Sres  Yecker  Torre  y  Ca.  ceden  a  los  Sres  Barron  For- 
bes y  Ca.  a  costo  y  costas  diez  mil  (10,000)  frazcos  para  azogue  que 
ienen  pedidos  a  Ynglaterra.  Al  efecto  los  Sres  Yecker  Torre  y 
Ca.  entregaran  en  esta  los  conocimientos  que  tienen  en  su  poder' 
ya  por  cinco  mil  (5,000)  frazcos,  y  daran  orden  a  sus  corresponsales 
de  Londres  de  entregar  el  resto  k  medida  que  se  vaya,  concluyendo. 
Por  su  parte  los  Sres  Barron  Forbes  y  Ca.  encargaran  a  sus  cor- 
responsales de  pagar  a  los  Sres  Finlay  Hodgson  y  Compania  de 
Londres,  el  importe  y  demas  gastos,  relativos  a  dichos  diez  mil  frazcos. 

Para  seguridad  de  las  partes  interesadas  se  otorgard  una  escritura 
publica~  en  las  firmas  legates  y  acostumbradas,  cuya  escritura  servira 
de  titulo  de  propiedad  a  los  Senores  compradores  y  a  los  Sres 
vendedores  de  documento  para  el  cobro  del  importe  de  la  venta. 

Cualquiera  duda  o  diferencia  que  ocurriese  sobre  la  interpretacion 
de  los  Articulos  de  este  contrato,  y  de  la  escritura  mencionada  en  el 
articulo  anterior,  6  en  la  ejecucion  de  lo  que  uno  u  otro  disponen,  se 
decidira  por  dos  arbitros  nombrados  uno  por  cada  parte,  y  en  caso  de 
discordia  por  un  tercero  que  eligiran  dichos  arbitros. 

Hecho  doble  a  Mejico  a  veinte  y  siete  de  Noviembre  de  mil  ocho- 
cientos  cincuenta  y  dos. 

p.  Barron  Forbes  y  Ca.       EUSTAQUIO  BARRON. 
YECKER  TORRE  Y  CA. 


194 

Articulo  Adicional. 

Para  mayor  claridad  se  declara  que  por  las  palabras  de  una  escn- 
tura  en  las  formas  legales  y  acostumbradas,  queda  entendido  que  las 
cosas  vendidas  estan  especialmente  hipotecadas  a  la  seguridad  del  pa- 
go  de  su  precio,  asi  como  este  al  puntual  cumplimiento  de  las  obli- 
gaciones  que  contraen  los  Sres  vendedores  sin  perjuicio  de  la  hi- 
poteca  general. 

YECKER  TORRE  Y  CA. 


Sigue :  Que  debiendo  en  cumplimento  del  preinserto  contrato  proce- 
der  al  otorgamiento  de  la  escritura  segun  en  el  se  contiene  poniendola 
en  efecto,  en  aquella  via  y  forma  que  mas  en  derecho  haya  lugar,  y  que 
mas  firme  y  valedera  sea,  otorgan  los  espresados  Senores,  Yecker  Tor- 
re y  Ca. 

Que  en  los  terminos  y  bajo  las  condiciones  que  quedan  asentados 
en  la  insercion  del  mencionado  contrato,  de  viente  y  siete  de  Novi- 
embre  ultimo,  venden  a  •  los  Sres  Barron  Forbes  y  Ca.  para  ellos  y 
sus  sucessores,  y  para  los  quede  ellos  tengan  titulo  6  causa  para  si- 
empre  y  sin  reserva  alguna,  las  tres  y  media  acciones  aviadoras  y  las 
cuatro  y  once  decimas  cuartas  partes  de  las  aviadas,  segun  queda  es- 
presado,  asi  como  les  venden,  tambien  la  parte  que  tenian  en  la  casa 
de  comercio  de  San  Francisco  de  la  Alta  California  establecida  bajo 
el  razon  de  Bolton  Barron  y  Ca.  con  el  capital  de  sesenta  mil  mil  pesos 
que  pusieron  por  mitad  la  casa  de  los  Sres  Yecker  Torre  y  Ca.,  y 
la  de  los  Sres  Barron  Forbes  y  Ca.  e*  igualmente  les  venden  diez 
mil  frazcos  para  azogue  todo  en  can ti tad  de  trescientos  ochenta  mil 
pesos,  y  ademas  el  costo  y  costos  de  los  frazcos  para  azogue  ;  cuyas 
ventas  comprenden  todo  lo  que  a  la  parte  de  los  Senores  Yecker,  Tor- 
re y  Ca.  tocaba  y  pudiera  tocar  hasta  fecha  del  contrato  de  veinte  si- 
ete del  mes  pasado,  sustituyendo  los  vendedores  a  los  compradores  en 
su  lugar  y  cediendoles  en  los  terminos  espresados ;  sus  acciones  tal 
como  las  poseen,  sin  prestar  saneamiento,  y  sin  responsibilidad  de  nin- 
guna  clase  por  lo  pasado  y  por  lo  futuro,  tanto  respecto  de  la  mina  de 
N.  Almaden,  como  respecto  de  la  casa  de  San  Francisco.  Que  en 
consequencia  de  las  respectivas  obligaciones  que  por  el  repitido  con- 
trato han  estipulado,  mutuamente  los  Sres  Yecker  Torre  y  Ca.  se 
desisten,  quitan  y  apartan  del  derecbo  dominio,  propiedad  y  possesion 
de  las  espresadas  acciones  aviadas  y  aviadoras  del  N.  Almaden,  del 
dominio,  propriedad  y  posesion  a  la  parte  de  la  negociacion  de  San 
Francisco  y  del  que  tenian  por  compra  de  los  diez  mil  frazcos,  para 
azogue  ;  y  traspasan  todos  los  espresados  derechos  a  los  Senores  Bar- 
ron Forbes  y  Ca.  para  ellos  y  sus  succesores,  con  la  plena  propriedad  y 


195 

posesion  y  con  todos  sus  acciones  reales,  personales,  utiles,  mixtas,  di- 
rectas,  ejecutivas  y  demas  que  les  corresponden,  para  que  perciban  to- 
do  lo  que  de  las  espresadas  negociacion  3S  y  cosas  debieran  percibir  I03 
otorgantes,  si  no  hubieran  hecho  esta  venta,  incluso  el  procsimo  divi- 
dendo  cuya  cuenta  se  esta  haciendo,  el  producto  de  todas  las  ventas 
hechas  y  por  hacia  de  los  azogues  esplotados  beneficiados  y  por  bene- 
ficiar  hasta  la  fecha  del  contrato  y  de  las  utilidades  habidas  en  la  ca- 
sa  de  comercio  de  Bolton  Barron  y  Ca.  hasta  la  misma  fecha  y  de 
alii  en  adelante  quedando  comprendido  en  esta  cecion  y  venta  de  de- 
rechos,  todo  cuanto  por  los  de  los  otorgantes  les  pudiere  corresponder 
en  las  negociaciones  sea  raiz  mueble  y  semoviente.  Se  obligan  los  re- 
feridos  Senores  Yecker  Torre  y  Ca.  a  dar  cuenta  de  todo  el  Azogue 
que  han  recibido  para  su  venta  y  a  entregar  a  los  Sres  Barron  For- 
bes y  Ca.  todo  el  producto  de  las  ventas  con  retencion  de  ciento 
ochenta  mil  pesos  por  el  primer  abono  en  pago  del  precio  de  la  venta 
k  que  se  contrae  esta  escritura,  y  a  poner  a  su  disposicion  los  docu- 
mentos  de  creditos  procedentes  de  las  ventas  hechas  a  plazo  de  dicho 
azogue  que  les  estaba  consignado,  y  el  azogue  mismo  no  vendido  exis- 
tente  para  lo  cual  declaran  haber  librado  ya  ordenes  oportunas  ee  ob- 
ligan por  ultimo  a  entregar  a  Barron  Forbes  y  Ca.  el  importe  de  los 
gastos  de  la  negociacion  del  Nuevo  Almaden  en  la  parte  que  en  ellos 
les  tocaba  hasta  treinta  de  Setiembre  de  este  ano  conforme  a  la  cuen- 
ta que  hasta  esta  fecha  pasaion  los  Sres  Bolton  Barron  y  Ca.  y 
el  Sor  Don  Eustaquio  Barron  en  representacion  de  los  Sres  Bar- 
ron Forbes  y  Ca.  acepta  la  venta  y  cecion  de  las  acciones  del  Nuevo 
Almaden,  la  del  interes  en  la  casa  de  California,  y  la  de  los  diez  mil 
frazcos  para  azogue  en  los  terminos  y  y  bajo  las  condiciones  que  van 
asentadas,  y  que  por  dicha  casa  se  oblija  a  hacer  el  pago  de  los  tres- 
cientos  ochenta  mil  pesos  en  los  terminos  y  plazos  referidos  y  consien- 
te  en  que  los  Sres  Yecker  Torre  y  Ca.,  quedan  libres  de  la  evic- 
ciony  sanemiento  por  todo  lo  pasado  ylo  futuro  concerniente  41a  com- 
pafiia  y  negociacion  del  Nuevo  Almaden  y  a  la  casa  de  Bolton  Bar- 
ron y  Ca.  de  San  Francisco  sin  perjuicio  de  la  obligacion  de^los  Se- 
nores, Yecker  Torre  y  Ca.  de  saldar  y  cubrir  sus  cuentas  particulares 
pendientes  con  la  misma  casa  de  San  Francisco,  y  a  pagar  el  costo  y 
costos  de  los  frazcos  para  azogue,  como  se  espresa  en  el  contrato  de 
veinte  y  siete  de  Noviembre  procsimo  pasado,  cuyos  pagos  haran  en 
esta  ciudad  sin  falta,  escusa,  ni  demora  alguna  y  precisament  en  pe- 
sos fuertes  de  plata  del  cuno  corriente  mexicano ;  y  para  su  seguro 
y  sin  que  se  entienda  que  la  obligacion  general  de  bienes  deroga  ni 
perjudica  la  especial,  ni  por  el  contrario  esta  a  aquella  pues  ^  los 
Sres  Yecker  Torre  y  Ca.  podran  usar  de  la  que  mejor  les  agrade,  hipo- 
teca  el  Sor  Barron  por  su  casa  de  Barron,  Forbes  y  Ca.  las  barras  y 
acciones  que  ha  comprado  en  la  citada  mina  del  Almaden  y  demas  co- 
sas que  se  espresan  en  la  presente  escritura,   queriendo  que  esta  hipo- 


196 

teca  especial  surta  todos  los  efectos  legales  para  la  siguridad  de  log 
vendedores  con  condicion  de  que  6  presentara  poder  en  el  termino  de 
un  de  mes  de  su  casa  de  Barron  Forbes  y  Ca.,  6  ratificara  esta  el 
contrato  que  aqui  se  contiene.  Ya  la  observancia,  guarda  y  cum- 
plimiento  de  lo  relacionado  se  obligan  los  Senores  Yecker  Torre  y  Ca. 
con  sus  bienes  presentes  y  futuros,  y  el  Senor  Barron  con  los  de  su 
casa  a  quien  representa,  habidos  y  por  haber  y  con  ellos1  se  someten 
al  fuero  y  jurisdiction  de  los  Sres  Jueces  que  de  sus  causas,  pue^ 
dan  y  deban  conforme  a  derecho  conocer  para  que  a  lo  dicho  les  com- 
pelan  y  estrechan  como  si  fuera  por  sentencia  consentida  y  pasada  en 
autoridad  de  cosa  jusgada  ;  renuncian  las  leyes  de  su  favor  y  defensa 
con  la  general  del  dereeho. 

Asi  lo  octorgaron  y  firmaron  siendo  testigos  Don  Crescencio  Land- 
grave, Don  Francisco  Lara,  y  Don  Antonio  Ferreiro,  de  esta  vecini- 
dad ;  doy  % 

YECKER  TORRE  YCA. 
EUSTAQUIO  BARRON. 

Ramon  de  la  Cueva,  Escrib0  Nacional  y  Publico. 

Sacose  parte  de  los  Sres  vendedores  despues  de  sa  otorgami- 
ento  :  y  va  en  siete  fojas,  la  primera  del  sello  primero,  y  las  demas 
del  cuarto  bienio  corriente  corregido :  doy  fe. 

RAMON  de  la  CUEVA, 

E.N.  y  P. 

Los  Ynfrascritos  Escribanos,  Certificamos  y  damos  fe  ;  que  Don 
Ramon  de  la  Cueva  es  Escribano  Nacional  y  Publico  de  los  del  nume- 
ro  de  esta  Capital  y  suyos  el  signo  y  firma  con  que  autoriza  el  ante- 
rior testimonio  ;  y  a  cuanto  con  ellos  legaliza  se  le  ha  dado  y  da  en- 
tera  fe  y  credito  en  juicio  y  fuera  de  el. 

Y  para  que  conste  ponemos  la  presente  sellada  con  el  de  nuestro 
Nacional  Colegio,  en  la  Ciudad  de  Mexico  aonce  de  Diciembre  de 
mil  ochocientos  cincuenta  y  dos. 


Seal  t  t  t 

MM.  FV.  CL. 

Manuel  de  Mendarioma.      Fermin  Villa.      Crescent  Landgrave. 


197 

No.  1864. — Consulate  of  the  United  States  of  America,  ) 

Mexico,  December  15, 1852.  J 

I,  the  undersigned,  Consul  of  the  United  States  of  America  for  the 
city  of  Mexico,  hereby  certify,  that  the  signatures  of  Manuel  Muda- 
uaga,  Crescent0.  Landgrave  and  Fermin  Villa,  subscribed  to  the  fore- 
going certificate,  are  in  theproper  handwriting  of  said  persons  respec- 
tively, the  same  as  used  by  them  in  all  their  like  official  acts,  who  are 
all  well  known  to  me,  and  were  at  the  time  of  subscribing  their  respec- 
tive names,  duly  authorized  Notary'  Public  of  this  city,  and  that  all 
their  official  acts  either  jointly  or  separately,  are  entitled  to  full  faith 
and  credit  as  such. 

In  testimony  whereof,  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  official  seal, 
the  day  and  year  first  above  written. 

JOHN  BLACK, 

Seal  J  Consul. 


Register  F,  folio  288. 
Dis.  4  ps. 

Filed  for  record  at  3.J  o'clock  P.  M.,  January  18th,  1853. 

J.  M.  MURPHY,  Recorder. 
By  S.  0.  Houghton,  Deputy. 

Recorded  at  the  request  of  R.  Walkinshaw. 

J.  M.  MURPHY,  Recorder. 
By  S.  0.  Houghton,  Deputy. 

Recorder's  Office,  County  of  Santa  Clara,  ) 
California,  July  30,  A.  D.  1857.         J 

I  hereby  certify,  that  the  foregoing  on  pages  1,  2,  3,  4,  5,  6,  7,  8, 
9  and*  10  of  this,  centains  a  true  and  correct  copy  of  an  Instrument, 
now  of  record  in  this  office,  and  recorded  in  Book  F  of  Deeds,  pages 
42, 43,  44  and  45. 

Witness  my  hand  and  official  seal,  at  office  in  the  city  of  San  Jose*, 
the  day  and  date  last  written. 


Seal  j  S.  A.  CLARK,  County  Recorder 
)  "Rv  fih&n.  M.  Yoell.  Demitv 

Filed,  August  20,  1857. 


By  Geo.  M.  Yoell,  Deputy. 


VV.  II.  CIIEVERS, 
Clerk. 


198 
NOTICE  TO  PRODUCE  PAPERS. 

DISTRICT    COURT    OF   THE  UNITED   STATES  FOR  THE 
NORTHERN  DISTRICT  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


The  United   States, 
Appellants, 


vs. 


Andreas  Castillero, 
Appellee. 


D.  C.  No.  420. 
L.  C.  No.  366. 


You  will  take  notice  that  you  are  required  to  produce  before  the 
trial  of  this  case,  the  originals  of  the  following  papers,  to  wit : 

1.  Four  acts  of  sale  each  of  one  barra  made  at  Tepic,  by  Jose* 
Castro  to  Alexander  Forbes,  and  dated  respectively,  March  1,  1847; 
April  12, 1847  ;  April  16, 1847  ;  May  10,  1847  ;  with  all  the  certi- 
ficates and  endorsements  thereon,  as  appearing  of  record  in  the  office 
of  the  Recorder  of  Santa  Clara  county. 

2.  Act  of  sale  by  Secundino  Robles  and  Teodoro  Robles,  to  Alex- 
ander Forbes,  of  two  barras,  before  Ygnacio  Alvisu,  Justice  of  Peace, 
dated  September  14,  1847. 

3.  Act  of  sale  by  Andres  Castillero,  by  his  attorney-in-fact  Padre 
Real,  .to  Alexander  Forbes,  of  three  barras,  dated  December  27, 
1847. 

4.  Another  act  of  sale  of  two  barras,  by  Secundino  Robles  and 
Teodoro  Robles,  by  their  attorney-in-fact,  James  Alexander  Forbes, 
to  Robert  Walkinshaw,  date  April  14,  1848. 

5  Act  of  sale  of  one  barra,  by  Padre  Real  to  Robert  Walkinshaw, 
dated  August  9,  1849. 

6.  Power  of  attorney  of  Alexander  Forbes  to  James  Alexander 
Forbes,  dated  April  23, 1849. 

7.  Act  of  sale  of  one  barra,  James  Alexander  Forbes  to  John 
Parrott,  August  9,  1850. 

8.  Act  of  sale  of  3-20ths  of  one  barra,  by  James  Alexander 
Forbes  to  Henry  Laurencel,  dated  September  10,  1850. 

9.  Sale  of  3-20ths  of  one  barra,  by  Henry  Laurencel  to  Bolton  & 
Barron,  dated  March  22,  1851. 

10.  Sale  of  3-20ths  of  one  barra  by  Bolton  &  Barron  to  J.  E. 
Fernandez,  dated  April  30,  1852. 

11.  Sale  of  3-20ths  of  one  barra,  by  J.  E.  Fernandez  to  J.  F. 
Leon,  dated  April  14,  1853. 

12.  Sale  of  3-10ths  of  one  barra,  J.  F.  Leon  to  James  Alex- 
ander Forbes,  dated  August  4,  1853. 


199 

13.  Sale  of  one  barra,  by  James  Alexander  Forbes  to  Wm.  E. 
Barron,  dated  March  30,  1855. 

14.  Same  to  same,  dated  May  29, 1855. 

15  Sale  of  all  the  interest  of  Jecker,  Torre  y  Compania  to  Bar- 
ron, Forbes  y  Compania,  dated  Mexico,  December  7,  1852. 

And  secondary  evidence  of  the  existence  and  contents  of  said 
papers  will  be  given  and  used  on  the  trial  if  you  fail  to  produce  said 
originals. 

San  Francisco,  August  20,  1857. 

P.  DELLA  TORRE, 
U.  S.  Dist.  Att'y. 
To  Messrs.  Halleck,  Peachy  &  Billings, 
Attorneys  of  Andres  Castillero. 

Rec'd  a  copy  of  the  within,  August  20,  1857. 

HALLECK,  PEACHY  &  BILLINGS, 

Attorneys  for  Claimant. 
Filed  August  21, 1857.      ' 

W.  H.  CHEVERS, 

Dep.  Clerk. 


[0.  H.  No.  51.] 


CERTIFIED   COPY  OF  BILL  AND  ANSWER  FROM  U.  S. 
CIRCUIT   COURT. 

To  the  Honorable,  the  Judge  of  the  District  Court  of  the  United 
States  for  the  Northern  District  of  California : 

Maria  Zaede  Bernel  Berreyesa,  widow  of  Jose  Reyes  Berreyesa, 
deceased,  Maria  del  Carmen  Berreyesa,  and  her  husband,  Lorenzo 
Penedo,  Loreta  Berreyesa,  and  her  husband,  Juan  Bejoquis,  Santiago 
Berreyesa,  Jose  de  los  Santos  Berreyesa,  Nemisio  Berreyesa,  Fran- 
cisco Berreyesa,  Fernando  Berreyesa,  Magadina  Berreyesa,  and  her 
husband,  Mariano  Fernandez,  and  Jose  Encarnacio  Berreyesa,  heirs 
at  law  of  Jose  Reyes  Berreyesa,  deceased  ;  also,  Richard  Roman, 
James  Hepburn,  Charles  Stuart  and  Isaac  N.  Thorn,  citizens  of  the 
State  of  California,  and  residents  of  said  Northern  District,  bring  this 
their  bill  against  Alexander  Forbes,  Eustace  Barron,  William  Forbes 
and  Eustace  W.  Barron,  who  are  aliens — subjects  of  the  Crown  of 
Great  Britain,  and  resident  in  the  Republic  of  Mexico  ;  Isidoro  de  la 
Torre'  and  J.  B.  Jeckxier,  who  are  also  aliens,  citizens  of  and  resi- 
dents in  the  Republic  of  Mexico;   Martin  la  Peidra  and  Francis 


200 

Maria  Ortezy,  who  are  aliens  resident  in  the  City  of  Mexico ;  James 
A.  Forbes  and  Robert  Walkinshaw,  who  are  also  aliens,  now  resident 
in  this  State,  in  the  County  of  Santa  Clara,  and  John  Parrot,  who  is 
a  citizen  of  the  State  of  Virginia,  now  in  the  City  of  San  Francisco, 
in  this  State. 

1st.  And  thrcupon  your  orators  and  oratrixes  complain  and  say  : 
1st.  That  the  said  widow  and  the  said  Maria,  Loreta,  Santiago,  Josd, 
Nemisio,  Francisco,  Fernando,  Magdalina  and  Jose*  Encarnacion,  the 
children  and  heirs  of  said  Jose*  Reyes,  deceased,  are  lawfully  seized  and 
possessed  of  a  certain  tract  of  land  in  the  State  of  California,  situate  in 
the  County  of  Santa  Clara,  known  as  the  Rancho  de  la  Canada  de  los 
Capitancillos,  alias,  Rancho  of  San  Vicente,  and  bounded  on  the 
north  by  the  low  hills  near  the  lands  of  the  Pueblo  of  San  Jose* ;  on 
the  south  by  the  Sierra ;  on  the  east  by  the  Laurel  hills,  and  on  the 
west  by  the  Rancho  of  Justo  Larios,  which  western  line  commences 
at  the  angle  formed  by  the  junction  of  the  Arroyo  Seco  and  Alamitos 
Creek,  and  runs  thence  south  by  the  eastern  slope  of  the  hills  in  the 
centre  of  the  valley,  to  the  Sierra :  the  whole  of  said  tract  of  land 
within  said  boundaries  was  duly  granted  to  the  said  Jose  Reyes  Ber- 
reyesa  during  his  lifetime,  viz  :  on  the  20th  day  of  August,  1842,  by 
Juan  B.  Alvarado,  then  Governor  of  California  ;  said  grant  was  also 
duly  recorded ;  for  five  years  previous  to  said  grant,  said  Jose*  Reyes 
had  been  in  continued  possession  of  said  tract  of  land,  was  then,  and 
ever  afterwards  until  the  time  of  his  death,  in  the  year  1847,  contin- 
ued to  be  in  the  actual  possession  thereof,  as  the  absolute  owner  in 
good  faith. 

2d.  That  sometime  in  the  year  1847,  the  said  Jose  Reyes  departed 
this  life,  leaving  his  said  widow  him  surviving,  and  his  said  children 
heirs  at  law,  seized  and  possessed  of  the  said  lands  and  appurtenances 
by  descent. 

3d.  That  your  orators,  the  said  Roman,  Hepburn,  Stuart  and 
Thorn,  became  and  are  the  lessees  of  all  the  quicksilver  minerals  and 
mines,  with  the  appurtenances,  on  said  tract  of  land,  for  a  term  of 
twenty  years  from  and  after  the  12th  day  of  July,  A.  I).  1850,  by  a 
written  contract  of  lease  duly  made  and  delivered  on  that  day,  by 
said  widow  and  heirs  of  the  said  Jose*  Reyes,  deceased,  to  said 
lessees  ;  in  which  contract,  however,  the  name  of  your  orator,  Thorn, 
was,  by  mistake  omitted  ;  all  which  will  more  fully  appear  by  refer- 
ence to  said  written  contract  of  lease  herewith  filed,  marked  Exhibit 
A.,  and  prayed  to  be  taken  as  part  of  this  bill. 

4th.   Your  orators  and  oratrixes  further  show  that  on  the  —  day 

of ,  1847,  the  defendants  did  wrongfully  and  forcibly  enter  upon 

and  take  possession  of  a  large  and  valuable  portion  of  said  tract  of 
land,  viz :  all  that  portion  thereof  lying  west  of  the  Arroyo  de  los 
Alamitos,  with  a  tract  east  of  and  along  said  Arroyo  of  half  a  mile  in 


201 

width  to  the  Sierra,  on  both  sides  of  said  Arroyo  ;  a  map  or  diagram 
whereof  is  herewith  filed  as  part  of  this  bill,  marked  Exhibit  B. 
That  the  defendants  have  erected  buildings,  lime-kilns,  forges  and 
furnaces  thereon,  wrongfully,  and  without  the  consent  of  your  orators 
and  oratrixes,  or  any  of  them  ;  they  have  in  like  manner  cut  down  and 
destroyed  large  numbers  of  valuable  growing  trees  thereon ;  they 
have  opened  quarries  and  removed  therefrom  large  quantities  of  lime, 
of  great  value,  and  converted  the  same  to  their  own  use  ;  they  have 
opened  .extensive  mines  of  cinnabar,  and  have  removed  therefrom 
large  quantities  of  quicksilver,  of  great  value,  and  have  sold  the 
same,  to  the  great  damage  of  your  orators  and  oratiixes,  in  the  sum 
of  at  least  one  million  of  dollars. 

5th.  Your  orators  and  oratrixes  further  show  that  in  the  District 
Court  of  this  State,  of  the  third  Judicial  District,  fcr  the  County  of 

Santa  Clara,  they  did  on  the day  of  September,  1850,  institute 

suit  against  the  defendants  to  recover  possession  of  that  part  of 
the  tract  of  land  aforesaid  so  wrongfully  seized  and  upon  which  the 
trespasses  as  aforesaid   had   been  committed   by  the  defendants,  and 

to  recover  damages  for  said  trespasses :    That  on  the day  of 

,  1852,  upon  the  application  of  the  defendants  therein  previously 

presented,  an  order  was  made  by  said  District  Court  of  said  State 
to  remove  said  cause  therefrom  to  the  District  Court  of  the  United 
States  for  the  Northern  District  of  California,  sitting  as  a  Circuit 
Court  in  the  Town  of  San  Jose,  in  the  County  of  Santa  Clara ;  that 
the  Federal  District  Court  aforesaid  now  has  jurisdiction  of  said 
cause,  and  that  the  same  is  still  pending  and  undetermined. 

6th.  Your  orators  and  oratrixes  are  informed,  believe,  and  charge 
to  be  true,  that  said  defendants  having  formed  a  company  to  work 
said  mines  (u  New  Almaden  Mines")  ;  that,  disregarding  the  rights 
of  your  orators  and  oratrixes  in  the  premises,  they  have  continued  to 
the  present  time  to  commit  trespasses  as  aforesaid  upon  said  land,  in 
the  destroying  of  timber,  in  opening  the  earth,  and  in  taking  there- 
from cinnabar  in  large  quantities,  viz  :  sufficient  in  amount  to  produce 
at  least  two  thousand  pounds  of  quicksilver  daily. 

7th.  That  said  defendants,  well  knowing  that  they  have  no  just 
right  to  said  land,  or  to  the  timber,  stone,  and  mines  thereon,  have 
been  using  exertions  by  various  pretences  and  subterfuges  to  produce 
delay,  and  have  succeeded  in  producing  great  delay  in  the  progress 
of  said  action  of  ejectment  and  fcr  damages,  and  in  the  mean  time 
they  are  assiduously  engaged  in  their  mining  operations  as  aforesaid, 
and  in  the  most  secret  but  expeditious  manner  practicable,  they  are 
removing  the  quicksilver  taken  therefrom,  and  through  the  assistance 
of  each  other,  thair  agents  and  confjd  crates,  are  conveying  the  s;  m3 
out  of  the  limits  of  this  State,  and  beyond  the  jurisdiction  of  this 
Court,  and  selling  the  same. 
21 


202 

8th.  Your  orators  and  oratrixes  are  informed,  believe,  and  charge 
that  the  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  said  quicksilver  amounts  to  about 
the  sum  of  $1000  per  day,  and  that  said  defendants  are  fraudulently 
retaining  said  proceeds  beyond  the  jurisdiction  of  this  Court,  or  con- 
cealing the  same  ;  that  the  defendants  have  not,  as  your  orator  and 
oratrixes  are  informed,  believe,  and  charge  to  be  true,  visible  property 
within  reach  of  the  process  of  this  Court,  or  subject  thereto,  sufficient 
to  satisfy  and  discharge  the  damages  which  the  complainants  are  justly 
entitled  to  recover  in  their  said  action  at  law,  or  even  one-fourth  part 
thereof ;  and  that  unless  the  defendants  are  restrained  by  the  inter- 
position of  your  Honor  from  the  commission  of  further  trespasses  as 
aforesaid,  and  from  removing,  selling,  or  otherwise  disposing  of  the 
products  of  said  mines  now  within  the  jurisdiction  of  this  Court,  they 
will  sustain  great  and  irreparable  injury  in  the  premises. 

9th.  Your  orators  and  oratrixes  are  informed,  believe,  and  charge, 
that  there  is  now  in  the  possession  of  said  defendants,  or  under  their 
control,  within  the  Counties  of  Santa  Clara  and  San  Francisco,  about 
500,000  pounds  of  quicksilver,  of  the  value  of  fifty  cents  per  pound, 
the  products  of  said  mines,  ready  to  be  shipped,  and  which  the  de- 
fendants are  preparing  to  ship  to  some  foreign  country  to  be  sold,  and 
that  they  will  so  do,  unless  restrained  therefrom  by  injunction. 

10th.  The  premises  considered,  your  orators  and  oratrixes  pray 
that  said  Alexander  Forbes,  Eustace  Barron  William  Forbes,  Eustace 
W.  Barron,  Isadoro  de  la  Torre,  J.  B.  Jeiker,  Martin  la  Piedra, 
Francis  Maria  Ortezy,  James  A.  Forbes,  Robert  Walkinshaw  and 
John  Parrott,  be  made  parties  defendant  to  this  Bill  of  Complaint, 
and  as  such,  be  required  upon  their  corporal  oaths,  full,  true,  and  per- 
fect answers  to  make,  according  to  the  best  of  their  and  each  of  their 
knowledge,  information  and  belief,  to  all  and  singular  the  severrl  alle- 
gations and  charges  in  this  Bill  contained ;  particularly  that  they 
answer  and  say : 

1st.  Whether  the  allegations  firstly  set  forth  in  this  Bill  are  not 
true ; 

2d.  Whether  the  allegations  secondly  set  forth  in  said  Bill  are  not 
true ; 

3d.  Whether  the  allegations  thirdly  set  forth  in  said  Bill  are  not 
true  ; 

4th.  Whether  they  did  not  enter  upon  said  lands  as  is  fourthly  al- 
leged in  said  Bill,  and  if  so,  when  ?  and, 

5th.  Whether  such  entry  was  not  made  without  any  right  or  lawful 
authority  on  their  part ;  and  if  under  any  pretended  authority,  let 
them  produce  and  show  the  same  ;  and, 

6th.  Whether  they  have  not  opened  quarries  and  mines,  and  re- 
moved limestone  and  cinnabar  therefrom,  also  cut  down  and  destroyed 
trees  upon  said  land,  as  is  stated  in  the  fourth  allegation,  and, 


203 

♦7th.  Whether .  said  trees,  limestone,  and  quicksilver  have  not  been 
of  the  value  of  one  million  of  dollars,  as  charged  in  the  Bill;  and, 

8th.  Whether  the  complainants  have  not  instituted  an  action  at 
law,  as  set  forth  fifthly  in  said  Bill,  and  whether  said  action  has  not 
been  removed  to  the  Federal  Court,  as  therein  stated ;  and, 

9th.  Whether  the  allegations  sixthly  set  forth  in  said  Bill  are  not 
true  ;  and, 

10th.  Whether  the  allegations  and  charges  seventhly  set  forth  in 
said  Bill  are  not  true  ;  and, 

11th.  Whether  the  proceeds  of  said  mining  operations  have  not 
amounted  to  the  sum  of  one  million  of  dollars,  and  if  not,  then  what 
is  the  aggregate  sum  ?  and, 

12th.  Whether  the  proeeeds  of  said  mines  are  not  of  the  value  of 
about  $1000  per  day,  and  if  not,  then  what  ?  and, 

13th.  Whether  they  have  not  in  their  possession  or  under  their 
control,  in  the  City  of  San  Francisco,  a  large  quantity  of  quicksilver, 
and  if  yea,  how  much,  and  of  what  value  ?  and, 

14th.  Whether  they  h-eve  not,  in  like  manner,  a  large  quantity  of 
quicksilver  in  the  County  of  Santa  Clara,  and  if  yea,  of  what  value  ? 
and, 

15th.  Whether  they  are  not  preparing  to  convey  the  same  abroad 
for  sale. 

Your  orators  and  oratrixes  pray  that,  if  necessary,  an  account  may 
be  taken  of  the  value  of  the  timber  so  cut  and  destroyed  upon  said 
land,  also  of  the  lime  and  quicksilver  taken  from  the  quarries  and 
mines  thereon,  as  your  Honor  may  order  and  direct ;  that  the  de- 
fendants, their  agents  and  confederates,  may  be  enjoined  from  commit- 
ting any  further  trespasses  on  said  land,  and  from  removing,  selling, 
or  otherwise  disposing  of  the  Cinnabar  or  quicksilver  now  in  this  State 
and  in  their  possession  or  under  their  control,  until  the  action  at  law 
aforesaid  can  be  heard  and  determined,  or  until  the  order  of  your 
Honor  to- the  contrary  : 

That  a  receiver  may  be  appointed  to  take  charge  of  the  said  mines 
and  all  the  products  thereof,  now  within  the  jurisdiction  of  this  Hon- 
orable Court,  together  with  all  the  appurtenances  belonging  thereto, 
with  such  powers,  orders,  and  instructions  in  the  premises  as  to  your 
your  Honor  may  seem  proper  in  that  behalf. 

May  it  please  your  honor  to  grant  a  writ  or  writs  of  injunction, 
issuing  out  of  and  under  the  seal  of  this  Honorable  Court,  to  be  di- 
rected to  the  said  defendants,  their  agents,  confederates,  &c,  to 
restrain  them  from  removing,  selling,  or  otherwise  disposing  of  the 
products  of  said  mines,  and  all  further  trespasses,  &c. ;  also,  that  a 
writ  or  writs  or  writs  of  subpoena  commanding  them  at  a  certain  day, 
and  under  a  certain  pain,  to  appear  and  answer  as  aforesaid. 


204 

And  your  orators  and  oratrixes  pray  for  any  and  all  other  such  fur- 
ther relief  in  the  premises,  as  to  your  Honor  may  seem  meet. 

CHS.  V.  STUART, 
ISAAC  N.  THORNE. 


DISTRICT  COURT  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES,  ) 

For  the  Northern  District  of  California.      ) 

Before  John  A.  Monroe,  a  Commissioner  of  said  Court,  in  the  City 
of  San  Francisco,  the  above  named  complainants,  Charles  V.  Stuart 
and  Isaac  N.  Thorne,  being  duly  sworn,  depose  and  say,  that  the 
matters  and  things  set  forth  in  the  foregoing  Bill,  as  of  the  knowledge 
of  the  complainants,  are  true,  and  those  stated  as  upon  their  informa 
tion,  tbese  affiants  believe  to  be  true. 

Jno.  A.  Monroe, 


Here  follows  Exhibit  B. 

(Endorsed.) 

Filed  March  12,  1852. 

Filed  July  25,  1856. 


U.  S.  Commissioner. 

Jno.  A.  Monroe,  Clerk. 
Geo.  Pen.  Johnston,  Clerk. 


I,  Geo.  Pen.  Johnston,  Clerk  of  the  Circuit  Court  of  the  United 
States  for  the  District  of  California,  do  hereby  certify  the  foregoing 
to  be  a  true,  full  and  corect  copy  of  the  original  Bill  in  the  above 
entitled  cause  on  file  in  my  office. 

Witness  my  hand  and  the  seal  of  said  Court,  this  21st  day  of 
August,  A.  D.  1857. 
Attest  :  GEO.  PEN.  JOHNSTON. 

n  Per 

seal  Cutler  McAllister,  D.  C. 


In  the  Circuit  Court  within  and  for  the  Northern  Distnct  of  Cali- 
fornia, United  States  of  America. 

In  Equity. 

The  answer  of  Alexander  Forbes,  Eustace  Barron,  William  Forbes, 
Eustace  W.  Barron,  Isidoro  de  la  Torre,  Juan  B.  Jecker,  Martin  la 


205 

Peidra,  Francisco  Maria  Ortez,  James  A.  Forbes,  Robert  Walkinshaw 
and  John  Parrott,  (whose  citizenship  and  plaees  of  residence  are  cor- 
rectly stated  in  the  complainants'  Bill,)  to  the  Bill  of  Complaint  of 
Maria  Z.  Bernal  Berreyesa,  widow  of  Jose*  Reyes  Berreyesa,  de- 
ceased, Maria  del  Carmen  Berreyesa,  and  others,  complainants. 

These  defendants,  and  each  of  them,  now  and  at  all  times  here- 
after saving  and  reserving  unto  themselves  all  benefit  and  advantage 
of  exception  which  can  or  may  be  had  or  taken  to  the  many  errors, 
uncertainties,  and  other  imperfections  in  the  said  complainants'  said 
Bill  of  Complaint  contained,  for  answer  thereunto,  or  unto  so  much 
and  such  parts  thereof  as  the  defendants  are  advised  is  or  are  mate- 
rial or  nscessary  for  them  to  make  answer  unto,  these  defendants, 
answering,  say : 

1.  They  are  informed,  and  believe  it  to  be  true,  that  the  said 
Maria  Z.  Bernal  Berreyesa,  alleged  to  be  the  widow  of  Jose*  Reyes 
Berreyesa,  is  such  widow,  and  the  said  Maria,  Loreta,  Santiago,  Jose', 
Nemisio,  Francisco,  Fernando,  Magdalina  and  Jose*  Encarnacion, 
alleged  to  be  the  children  of  said  Jose  Reyes  Berreyesa,  are  such 
children,  and  together  are  the  heirs  of  said  Jose*  Reyes  Berreyesa, 
now  deceased  ;  but  they  are  informed,  and  believe  that  it  is  not  true, 
and  deny,  that  said  widow  and  children  are  lawfully  seized  and  pos- 
sessed of  a  certain  tract  of  land  in  the  State  of  California,  situate  in 
the  County  of  Santa  Clara,  known  as  the  Rancho  de  la  Canada  de  los 
Capitancillos,  alias  Rancho  of  San  Vicente,  and  bounded ''  on  the  north 
by  the  low  hills  near  the  lands  of  the  Pueblo  of  San  Jose* ;  on  the 
south  by  the  Sierra ;  on  the  east  by  the  Laurel  hills,  and  on  the  west 
by  the  Rancho  of  Justo  Larios,  which  western  line  commences  at  the 
angle  formed  by  the  junction  of  the  Arroyo  Seco  and  Alamitos  Creek, 
and  runs  thence  south  by  the  eastern  slope  of  the  hills  in  the  centre 
of  the  valley  to  the  Sierra." 

And  they  are  informed,  and  believe  that  it  is  not  true,  and  there- 
fore deny,  that  the  whole  or  any  part  of  said  tract  of  land  was  duly 
granted  to  the  said  Jose*  Reyes  Berreyesa  during  his  lifetime,  viz  :  on 
the  20th  day  of  August,  A.  D.  1842,  by  Juan  B.  Alvarado,  then  Gov- 
ernor of  California. 

They  are  informed,  and  believe  it  to  be  true,  that  Jose*  Reyes  Ber- 
reyesa was  in  the  occupation  of  a  portion,  and  claimed  possession  of 
a  tract  of  land  called  Canada  de  los  Capitancillos,  alias  San  Vicente, 
from  the  year  1845  to  the  time  of  his  death,  in  1847  ;  but  they  are 
informed,  and  believe  it  is  not  true,  and  deny,  that  during  said  period, 
or  any  part  thereof,  he  was  in  the  possession  or  occupation,  or  claimed 
possession  of  any  portion  of  the  land  now  alleged  by  the  complainants 


206 

to  be  wrongfully  in  the  possession  of  the  defendants,  and  a  part  of  the 
said  San  Vicente  tract. 

And  the  defendants  further  answering,  say  that  they  do  not  know, 
and  have  not  been  informed,  save  by  the  complaiuants'  bill,  and  can- 
not set  forth  as  to  their  belief  or  otherwise,  whether  the  said  Jose* 
Reyes  was  in  possession  of  said  San  Vicente  tract,  or  any  portion 
thereof,  previous  to  the  said  year  of  1845. 

And  the  defendants  further  answering,  say,  that  the  document  pre- 
tended to  be  a  grant  by  which  the  complainants  pretend  that  the  said 
San  Vicente  tract  was  granted  to  said  Jose*  Reyes  by  Juan  B.  Alva- 
rado,  was  exhibited  to  the  counsel  of  the  defendants  in  the  suit  at  law 
referred  to  in  said  Bill,  who  are  the  counsel  of  these  defendants ;  and 
these  defendants  are  informed  and  believe,  and  so  charge,  that  at  the 
time  the  same  purports  to  have  been  executed  by  Juan  B.  Alvarado, 
as  Governor  of  California,  he  had  no  authority  to  make  such  grant, 
and  was  not  Governor  of  California  ;  that  the  said  pretended  grant  had 
never  been  confirmed  by  the  legislative  body  of  the  Department  of 
California,  nor  by  the  Supreme  Government  of  Mexico ;  that  such 
confirmation  was  required  by  the  laws  of  Mexico  in  force  in  California 
at  the  time  said  grant  purports  to  have  been  made,  and  was  one  of 
the  conditions  incorporated  in  said  grant,  as  a  condition  precedent  to 
its  validity  ;  that  the  said  pretended  grant  is  otherwise  incomplete  and 
wholly  void  in  law. 

And  the  defendants  further  answering,  say,  that  they  are  not  in- 
formed whether  the  boundaries  of  the  said  San  Vicente  tract  men- 
tioned in  the  said  pretended  grant  are  correctly  stated  and  named  in 
the  first  section  of  the  complainants'  Bill ;  but  they  are  informed  and 
believe,  and  so  charge,  that  the  said  boundaries  as  stated  in  said  bill 
are  not  correctly  traced  and  laid  down  in  the  map  or  plan  attached  to 
said  bill ;  that  they  are  made  to  include  not  far  from  five  square 
leagues  of  land,  while  the  defendants  are  informed  and  believe,  and 
so  charge,  that  the  said  pretended  grant  is  only  for  one  square  league  ; 
that  the  complainants,  for  the  purposes  of  litigation,  and  to  annoy  the 
defendants — arbitrarily  doing  violence  to  the  terms  and  construction  of 
said  pretended  grant  to  Jose'  Reyes  Berreyesa,  and  as  defendants  are 
informed  and  believe,  to  the  natural  land-marks  of  the  region,  to  the 
possession  of  the  said  Josd  Reyes  Berreyesa,  his  construction  of  the 
said  pretended  grant,  and  his  declarations  concerning  the  same,  and 
the  possession,  construction,  and  declaration  of  his  widow  and  children, 
up  to  the  time  of  bringing  the  suit  at  law  in  said  Bill  mentioned,  and 
the  declarations  of  said  widow  and  some  of  the  children  since  the 
conveyance  of  said  suit — have  assumed  and  laid  down  the  boundary 
lines  of  said  San  Vicente  tract  where  in  law  and  in  fact  they  are 
not,  and  particularly  have  done"  so  by  making  the  boundaries  of  said 


207 

San  Vicente  include  any  of  the  land  alleged  in  the  Bill  to  be  in  pos- 
session of  the  defendants. 

And  of  the  said  so  called  Vicente  tract  of  land,  as  set  forth  in  the 
said  plan  or  map  attached  to  said  bill  of  complaint,  or  as  including  the 
land  alleged  to  be  in  the  possession  of  the  defendants,  the  defendants 
are  informed  and  believe  it  is  not  true,  and  deny,  that  the  said  Jose' 
Reyes  Berreyesa  was  ever  seized  of  the  same  either  in  law  or  in  fact. 

2.  The  defendants  are  informed,  and  believe  it  to  be  true,  that,  as 
stated  in  said  Bill,  the  said  Jose*  Reyes  Berreyesa  departed  this  life 
sometime  in  the  year  1847 — leaving  his  said  widow  and  children  him 
surviving  ;  but  they  are  informed  and  believe  it  is  not  true,  and  deny 
that  he  left  them  seized  and  possessed,  either  in  law  or  in  fact,  of  any 
tract  of  land  called  San  Vicente,  as  attempted  now  by  the  complainants 
to  be  located  and  bounded,  or  of  any  tract  of  land  including  within  its 
limits  the  lands  now  alleged  to  be  in  possession  of  the  defendants  ; 
though  they  are  informed  and  believe  that  he  left  them  seized  and  pos- 
sessed in  fact  of  a  tract  of  land  called  San  Vicente,  separate  and  dis- 
tinct from  the  land  alleged  to  be  in  the  possession  of  the  defendants 
and  called  New  Almaden. 

.  3.  The  defendants  further  answering,  say  that  they  have  been  in- 
formed and  believe  that  the  said  complainants,  Roman,  Hepburn, 
Stuart  and  Thome,  have  pretended  to  make  some  agreement  with  the 
widow  and  children  of  the  said  Jose*  Reyes,  deceased,  relative  to  the 
tract  of  land  called  San  Vecinte,  or  Canada  de  los  Cajritancillos,  but 
whether  the  said  pretended  agreement  is  a  lease,  whether  the  same  is 
correctly  stated  and  set  forth  in  Exhibit  A.,  of  complainants  bill, 
whether  the  same  was  ever  executed  by  the  said  widow  and  children, 
and  whether  thereby  the  said  Roman,  Hepburn,  Stuart  and  Thorne 
became  and  are  the  lessees  of  all  the  quicksilver  minerals  and  mines, 
with  the  appurtenances,  on  said  tract  of  land,  for  the  term  of  twenty 
years  from  and  after  the  12th  day  of  July,  A.  D.,  1850,  they  are  not 
informed  save  by  the  said  complainants'  said  bill :  But  they  are  in- 
formed and  believe  it  to  be  true,  and  so  charge,  that  the  said  Roman, 
Hepburn;  Stuart  and  Thorne,  by  said  pretended  agreement,  have  ac- 
quired and  can  acquire  no  right,  title  or  interest  to  the  land  alleged  to 
be  in  the  possession  of  the  defendants,  or  to  the  quicksilver  minerals 
or  mines  thereon,  because  they  say  that  the  said  San  Vecinte  tract  is 
separate  and  distinct  therefrom.  Further,  they  are  informed  and  be- 
lieve that  on  the  said  12th  day  of  July,  A.  D.  1850,  and  at  the  time 
the  said  pretended  agreement  is  alleged  to  have  been  made  and  de- 
livered, some  of  the  said  children  were  infants  and  incapable  of  duly 
making  and  delivering  such  an  agreement  as  is  alleged  in  said  Bill  to 
have  been  made  and  delivered  by  them,  and  that  the  same  would  be 
and  is  inoperative  tn  law.  Further,  the  defendants  are  informed  and 
believe,  and  so  charge  the  fact  to  be,  that  at  the  time  when  the  said 


208 

agreement  is  pretended  to  have  been  made,  the  said  widow  and  chil- 
dren did  not  claim  that  the  said  Vicente  tract  embraced  the  lands  al- 
leged to  be  in  possession  of  the  defendants,  called  New  Almaden,  nor 
did  they  intend  to  set  up  any  right  to  the  latter  ;  and  since  the  com- 
mencement of  the  suit  at  law  in  said  bill  mentioned,  the  widow  and 
some  of  the  said  children  who  have  not  been  allured  by  the  arts  and 
devices  of  the  said  Roman,  Hepburn,  Stuart  and  Thorne,  to  engage 
with  them  in  their  conspirings  to  harass  the  defendants  in  the  enjoy- 
ment of  their  just  rights,  have  frequently  declared  that  the  said  Ro- 
man, Hepburn,  Stuart  and  Thorne,  in  attempting  to  use  said  pretended 
agreement  as  giving  them  any  rights  to  the  tract  of  land  alleged  to 
be  in  the  possession  of  the  defendants,  called  New  Almaden,  were,  as 
the  defendants  now  charge  they  are,  practising  a  fraud  ;  that  the  said 
Vecinte  tract  did  not  include  the  said  New  Almaden,  and  that  in  said 
pretended  agreement  they  referred  to  minerals  on  the  San  Vicente 
tract,  claimed  by  them  to  be  separate  and  distinct  from  New  Almaden. 

4.  And  in  answer  to  the  allegations  contained  in  the  4th  section  of 
said  bill,  the  defendants  say  they  are  informed  and  believe  it  is  not 
true,  and  therefore  deny,  that  they  wrongfully,  unlawfully  and  forcibly, 
on  the  day  of  1847,  or  at  any  other  time,  did  enter 

upon  and  take  possession  of  a  large  and  valuable  portion  of  said  tract 
of  land  called  San  Vicente,  viz.:  all  that  portion  thereof  lying  west  of 
the  Arroyo  de  los  Alamitos,  with  a  tract  east  of  and  along  said  Ar- 
royo of  half  a  mile  in  width  to  the  Sierra  on  both  sides  of  said  Ar- 
royo, or  that  they  have  ever  entered  upon  and  taken  possession  of 
any  portion  whatever  of  said  Vicente  tract.  They  admit  that  from 
the  year  1847,  and  for  a  long  time  previous,  they,  or  those  whom  they 
now  represent  and  under  whom  they  claim,  have  been  in  the  posses- 
sion of  the  tract  of  land  called  New  Almaden,  a  plan  of  which  is  here- 
to attached,  marked  Exhibit  A — the  said  tract  being  upon  the  said 
Arroyo  de  hs  Alamitos  and  adjacent  to  the  said  San  Vicente,  but  dis- 
tinct therefrom  ;  but  the  possession  of  New  Almaden,  the  defendants 
say,  was  acquired  and  has  been  maintained  lawfully  and  peacably  by 
them  and  those  under  whom  they  hold ;  that  they  were,  have  con- 
tinued to  be,  and  now  are  entitled  to  such  possession  of  right,  first  by 
the  denouncement  of  a  quicksilver  mine  upon  said  tract,  and  subse- 
quently by  a  grant  of  the  said  tract  direct  f.om  the  Su  rime  Govern 
ment  of  Mexico,  previous  to  the  acquisition  of  California  by  the  United 
States  of  America,  and  that  it  is  against  equity  and  good  conscience 
that  the  heirs  of  the  said  Jose  Reyes  Rerreyesa,  or  those  associated 
with  them,  should,  under  their  said  pretended  title  known  to  be  incom- 
plete and  imperfect,  and  believed  to  be  fraudulent  and  void,  be  allow- 
ed to  interfere  with  the  long  and  continued  possession  of  the  defend- 
ants under  titles  which  they  allege  to  be  complete  and  absolute. 

And  the  defendants  further  answer,  that  they  are  informed  and  be- 


209 

lieve,  and  so  aver  the  fact  to  be,  that  in  the  month  of  November,  A. 
D.  1845,  one  Andres  Castillero,  a  citizen  of  Mexico,  at  that  time  resi- 
dent in  California,  in  accordance  with  the  laws  of  Mexico  and  the  forms 
in  such  cases  made  and  provided,  denounced  the  quicksilver  or  cinnabar 
mines  now  called  the  New  Almaden  Mine,  in  the  county  of  Santa 
Clara,  and  mentioned  in  said  bill  of  complaint ;  and  thereafter,  viz : 
on  the  30th  day  of  December,  of  the  same  year,  juridical  possession 
of  the  same  was  given  to  him,  by  the  proper  judicial  authority,  in  due 
form  of  law,  with  a  tract  of  land  three,  thousand  varas  in  all  direc- 
tions, which  tract  of  land  corresponds,  or  nearly  and  substantially  so, 
with  that  now  claimed,  possessed,  and  occupied  by  the  defendants,  and 
alleged  by  the  complainants  to  be  wrongfully  possessed  by  the  defend- 
ants ;  which  tract  of  land  the  said  Castillero,  and  the  defendants  as 
holding  under  him,  have  possessed  and  occupied  uninterruptedly  from 
the  said  30th  day  of  December,  A.  D.  1845,  to  the  present  time. 

That  a  writing  or  agreement  for  a  company  for  working  the  said 
mine  was  made  out,  and,  together  with  the  said  denouncement,  filed  in 
due  form  in  the  Archives  of  the  Alcalde  of  San  Jose',  on  or  about  the 
2d  day  of  November,  A.  D.  1845. 

That  the  said  denouncement  of  the  said  mine,  and  the  juridical  pos- 
session given  in  December,  A.  D.  1845,  were  approved  and  confirmed 
by  the  "  Junta  de  Fomento  y  Administracion  de  Miyieria"  the  high- 
est mining  tribunal  in  the  Government  of  Mexico,  on  the  5th  day  of 
May,  A.  D.  1846,  and  by  the  President  of  Mexico  on  the  9th  day  of 
the  same  month. 

That  by  these  proceedings  of  denouncement  the  said  Castillero  and 
his  then  associates  acquired  a  title  full,  complete,  and  absolute,  so  long 
as  they  worked  or  caused  the  mine  to  be  worked,  to  the  minerals  of 
the  mine  thus  denounced,  and  within  the  mining  possession  as  afore- 
said, and  a  right  to  the  use  of  the  surface  of  the  land  and  everything 
thereon,  so  far  as  it  might  be  necessary  to  the  working  of  the  mine ; 
and  this  without  reference  to  the  fee  of  the  land,  whether  the  same 
was  still  in  the  Mexican  Government  or  in  private  individuals. 

The"  defendants  admit  that  the  said  Castillero,  in  his  denounce- 
ment of  the  mine,  ignorant  of  the  boundaries  of  the  ranchos  in  Cali- 
fornia, and  indifferent  whether  the  mine  denounced  was  on  public  or 
private  land,  and  simply  for  the  purpose  of  fixing  the  identity  of  the 
mine  by  reference  to  some  rancho  in  the  vicinity,  mentions  the  mine 
in  some  papers  connected  with  the  proceedings  of  the  denouncement 
as  on  the  land  pertaining  to  the  rancho  of  Jose  Reyes  Berreyesa  ;  and 
in  some  others  as  on  lands  of  the  Mission  of  Santa  Clara ;  but  this 
was  only  for  the  purpose  of  description,  and  even,  if  not  descriptive, 
and  if  true,  would  not  affect  the  rights  of  the  defendants  in  the  premi- 
ses, but  were  mistakes,  as  shown — so  far  as  the  rancho  claimed  by  said 
Berreyesa  is  concerned — by  the  subsequent  action  of  the  Mexican 


210 

Government,  of  said  Jose*  Reyes  Berreyesa  and  his  heirs,  and  of  said 
Castillero,  his  associates,  and  those  holding  under  them. 

And  the  defendants  further  answering,  say,  that  on  the  14th  day  of 
said  May,  the  said  tribunal  of  the  Government  of  Mexico,  recom- 
mended the  President  of  Mexico  to  grant  to  the  said  Castillero,  in  fee, 
for  the  use  of  the  said  mine,  the  land  surrounding  it,  and  of  which 
juridical  possession  had  been  given  as  aforesaid  ;  and  on  the  20th  day 
of  May,  1845,  the  President  of  Mexico,  in  virtue  of  authority  in  him 
vested,  granted  to  the  said  Castillero  two  square  leagues  on  his  mining 
possession. 

That  by  virtue  of  the  juridical  possession  given  as  aforesaid,  in  De- 
cember, A.  D.  1845,  the  said  Castillero,  and  those  holding  under  him, 
had  and  held,  at  the  giving  of  the  said  grant  in  fee,  the  legal  and 
actual  possession  of  the  two  leagues  of  land  so  granted,  or  nearly  all 
of  it,  and  that  no  further  act  was  required  to  make  said  grant  full,  per- 
fect and  absolute. 

That  nevertheless,  in  order  the  more  particularly  to  mark  out  and 
define  the  boundaries  of  the  said  grant,  and  to  avoid  all  questions  of 
boundary  with  any  of  the  claimants  of  the  neighboring  lands,  the 
agents  of  said  Castillero  and  those  holding  under  him,  procured  the 
survey  of  the  said  lands  and  the  marking  of  the  boundaries,  which 
survey  and  marking  of  boundaries  were  executed  by  the  authorised 
Surveyor  of  that  district,  in  the  early  part  of  the  year  1848,  and 
which  survey  was  so  made  and  the  grant  so  located  as  to  leave  the 
said  mine  of  New  Almaden  in  the  centre,  or  nearly  so,  of  said  grant 
so  located,  and  to  include  little  or  no  land  on  the  side  next  the  tract  of 
San  Vicente  claimed  by  the  Berreyesa  widow  and  heirs,  but  on  the 
contrary  to  leave  out  a  large  portion  of  land  included  in  the  said  ju- 
ridical possession  on  the  side  next  the  Berreyesa  claim — this  being 
done  to  avoid  all  dispute  respecting  boundaries  ;  that  during  said  sur- 
vey and  marking  of  boundaries,  the  widow  of  the  said  Berreyesa  and 
his  other  heirs  named  in  the  bill,  were  present ;  that  they  pointed  out 
the  boundaries  of  the  rancho  claimed  by  them  called  San  Vicente,  and 
mentioned  in  this  Bill ;  assisted  in  marking  the  boundaries  of  said 
New  Almaden  land  ;  assented  thereto,  and  agreed  that  they  did  not 
conflict  with  or  interfere  with  the  boundaries  of  the  said  San  Vicente 
tract  claimed  by  them. 

That  the  tract  of  land  then  marked  off,  and  to  the  marking  off  of 
which,  being  present,  they  agreed,  amounted  to  two  square  leagues 
exactly,  was,  on  the  side  adjoining  the  Berreyesa  claim,  within  the  ju- 
ridical possession  given  in  1845  as  aforesaid,  and  is  precisely  the  tract 
of  land  now  called  "  New  Almaden,"  and  claimed,  possessed  and 
actually  occupied  by  the  defendants,  and  which  is  alleged  by  the  com- 
plainants in  the  said  bill  to  be  wrongfully  in  the  possession  of  the  de- 
fendants.    That  the  said  mine  of  New  Almaden  was  never  worked 


211 

until  denounced  by  the  said  Castillero,  but  from  the  time  of  said  de- 
nouncement has  been  workedby  him  and  those  associated  with  him  and 
holding  under  him,  to  the  present  time,  he  having  from  time  to  time 
associated  other  persons  with  him  for  the  working  of  said  mine,  audi 
transferred  to  others  his  right,  title,  interest  and  estate  in  and  to  the 
said  land  of  New  Almaden,  so  that  the  persons  made  defendants  in 
this  bill  are  now  the  owners  and  wrorkers  of  said  mine,  and  the  owners 
in  fee  and  occupants  of  said  tract  of  land. 

That  the  defendants  have  succeeded  to  all  the  rights  of  said  Castil- 
lero ;  that  the  rights  acquired  under  his  denouncement  have  continued 
uninterrupted  until  the  present  time,  and  now  are  vested  solely  and 
wholly  in  the  defendants.  And  that  by  the  working  of  the  mine  from 
its  denouncement  as  aforesaid,  and  by  the  succession  of  the  defendants 
to  all  the  rights  of  Castillero,  they  have  acquired  by  the  laws  of  Mex- 
ico a  perfect  title  to  the  minerals  of  said  mines  and  a  perfect  title  to 
use  the  said  land  for  said  mining  purposes,  even  should  the  fee  be  in 
others,  which  the  defendants  deny  and  aver  to  be  in  themselves  by 
virtue  of  the  aforesaid  grant  in  fee,  and  especially  to  be  in  them  .as 
against  the  said  pretended  title  under  which  the  complainants  profess 
to  claim,  and  which,  as  the  defendants  are  informed  and  believe  and 
have  already  said,  is  only  for  one  league,  and  never  embraced  the 
tract  of  New  Almaden,  and  is  incomplete,  fraudulent  and  void. 

The  defendants  further  answering,  admit  that  on  this  tract  called 
New  Almaden,  they  have  erected  buildings,  lime-kilns,  forges  and  fur- 
naces ;  have  opened  extensive  mines  of  cinnabar  and  extracted  there- 
from large  quantities  of  quicksilver — the  amount  and  value  of  which 
will  be  more  particularly  set  forth  hereinafter — and  in  the  prosecution 
of  their  great  undertaking  of  working  the  said  quicksilver  mine,  have 
cut  down  trees — but  not  in  large  quantities — for  fuel  and  other  pur- 
poses, and  opened  lime  quarries  to  obtain  lime  ;  but  they  deny  that 
they  have  done  these  things  wrongfully,  or  to  the  damage  of  complain- 
ants in  the  sum  of  one  million  dollars,  or  in  any  sum,  or  even  without 
the  implied  consent  of  the  said  Jose'  Reyes  Berreyesa  up  to  the  time 
of  his-death,  and  of  his  widow  and  heirs  up  to  the  commencement  of 
the  suit  at  law  in  the  complainants'  bill  mentioned,  and  of  the  widow 
and  some  of  the  heirs  to  the  present  time.  For  the  defendants  aver 
that  ever  since  the  denouncement  aforesaid,  and  during  all  the  time 
the  defendants,  and  those  under  whom  they  claim,  have  been  in  the 
possession  and  occupation  of  the  land  included  in  the  said  denounce- 
ment and  grant,  which  is  the  land  alleged  in  the  complainant's  bill,  to 
be  the  land  wrongfully  in  the  possession  of  the  defendants,  the  widow 
and  heirs  of  the  said  Jose  Reyes  Berreyesa,  or  most  of  them,  have 
resided  in  the  vicinity  of  the  said  mine  and  land  of  New  Almaden, 
and  daily  seen  the  defendants,  their  agents  and  servants,  at  work  in 
in  the  said  mine  and  on  the  said  land,  without  protest  or  objection,  un- 


212 

til  the  bringing  of  said  suit  at  law  ;  have  seen  and  been  fully  cogni- 
zant of  the  immense  expenditures  of  the  defendants,  amounting  to 
nearly  a  million  of  dollars,  in  works  and  improvements  on  said  mine 
and  land ;  have  witnessed  the  opening  and  working  of  the  mine  ;  the 
quarrying  and  burning  of  limestone  ;  the  cutting  of  wood  for  fuel ;  the 
erection  of  costly  buildings,  furnaces  and  smelting  works,  and  the  ex- 
traction and  exportation  of  quicksilver  ;  and  all  this  for  a  term  of  nearly 
five  years,  without  advancing  a  claim  to  the  land,  or  once  questioning 
the  ownership  or  possession  of  the  defendants.  Moreover,  during  this 
time  some  of  them  have  frequently  been  in  the  employ  of  the  defend- 
ants, and  labored  for  them  on  the  very  lands  which  the  complainants 
now  pretend  are  wrongfully  in  their  possession  and  pretend  to  claim, 
and  for  this  work  they  have  been  paid  by  the  defendants.  And  in 
this  acquiescence  in  the  defendant's  title  and  possession  they  have  done 
no  more  than  the  said  Jose*  Reyes  Berreyesa,  as  the  defendants  aver, 
did  up  to  the  day  of  his  death. 

And  the  defendants  attach  hereto  and  make  a  part  of  this  their  an- 
swer, a  copy  (Exhibit  B.)  of  an  original  paper  in  their  possession, 
dated  November  7,  1849,  signed  by  the  widow  and  children  of  said 
Jose  Reyes  Berreyesa,  in  which  they  say  "  the  lands  of  the  mine  of 
New  Almaden,  the  mine  itself,  and  the  site  of  its  works,  which  do  not 
belong  to  us  by  any  title." 

And  to  show  still  further  the  conduct  of  said  widow  and  children  in 
the  premises,  the  defendant?,  further  answering,  aver,  that  in  a  pur- 
chase for  a  valuable  consideration  made  by  them  of  the  interest  of 
said  widow  and  children  to  certain  land  adjacent  to  said  tract  of  New 
Almaden,  by  a  conveyance  in  writing,  it  is  expressed  therein  that  the 
land  is  bordering  on  the  land  belonging  to  New  Almaden  ;  the  same 
lands  which  the  complainants  now  allege  do  not  belong  to  New  Alma- 
den ;  and  in  the  same  conveyance,  the  right,  title  and  interest  of  said 
widow  and  children,  if  any  they  have,  to  the  lands  of  New  Almaden, 
now  alleged  to  be  wrongfully  in  the  possession  of  the  defendants,  is,  as 
the  defendants  believe,  to  them  conveyed ;  and  this  the  defendants 
contend  and  aver  had  been  previously  done  by  virtue  of  a  certain  con- 
veyance of  said  widow  and  children  to  one  Theodore  Shillaber,  who 
had  transferred  the  same  to  the  defendants  ;  all  of  which  took  place 
before  the  making  of  the  pretended  agreement  of  said  Roman,  Hep- 
burn, Stuart  and  Thorne. 

And  the  defendants  further  answering  say,  in  answer  to  the  allega- 
tions contained  in  the  4th  and  6th  articles  of  the  complainants'  bill  of 
complaint,  as  to  the  cutting  down  and  destroying  timber  and  quarry- 
ing and  removing  large  qnantities  of  lime,  that  they  have  never  taken 
sold  or  removed  from  the  said  tract  of  land,  which  they  say  to  them 
belongs,  any  wood,  timber,  limestone  or  lime  ;  and  the  timber  and 
wood   which  they  have   cut,  and  all  the  limestone  which  they  have 


213 

quarried  and  burned,  have  been  used  in  the  working  of  the  said  mine 
and  in  the  erection  of  buildings  and  permanent  improvements  on  the 
land  itself,  for  the  purposes  of  the  mine. 

5.  As  to  the  matter  contained  in  Article  5,  of  complainants  bill  of 
complaint,  the  defendants  further  answering  say,  that  they  admit  that 
in  the  District  Court  of  the  Third  Judicial  District  of  this  State,  for 
the  county  of  Santa  Clara,  these  complainants — save  that  Jose*  Encar- 
necion  Berreyesa,  appears  therein  by  his  tutor,  William  R.  Bassham, 
and  the  name  of  Isaac  N.  Thorne  is  not  among  the  plaintiffs — com- 
menced their  suit  against  Isidoro  de  la  Torre,  of  Mazatlan  in  Mexico, 
Alexander  Forbes,  William  Barron  and  Eustachio  Barron,  of  Tepic,  in 
Mexico,  John  Parrott,  of  San  Francisco,  and  James  A.  Forbes  and 
Robert  Walkinshaw,  of  Santa  Clara  county,  State  of  California,  to 
recover  possession  of  the  lands  and  mines  of  New  Almaden,  being  the 
same  land  and  mines  alleged  in  the  complainants'  bill  to  be  wrongfully 
in  the  possession  of  the  present  defendants,  and  to  recover  damages 
for  the  alleged  wrong  possession  and  detention  of  said  lands  and 
mines.  And  the  defendants  admit  that  the  order  of  removal  of  said 
cause  was  made  as  stated  in  the  said  bill,  and  that  the  same,  in  pur- 
suance of  the  said  order,  has  been  removed,  and  is  now  pending  in 
the  Circuit  Court  of  the  United  States,  for  the  Northern  District  of 
California  ;  but  these  defendants  deny  that  any  suit  against  them,  as 
made  defendants  in  the  complainants'  bill  of  complaint,  was  ever  in- 
stituted in  said  State  Court,  or  ever  removed  to,  or  is  now  pending  in, 
this  Court. 

6.  The  defendants  further  answering,  admit  that  they  constitute  a 
company  possessing,  working  and  claiming  the  lands  and  mines  of  New 
Almaden,  and  that  they  and  those  under  whom  they  hold  and  claim  the 
same,  have  possessed  the  said  land  and  worked  the  said  mine  for  a 
term  of  years,  as  has  hereinbefore  been  more  particularly  set  forth  ; 
but  they  deay  each  and  every  allegation  in  said  complainants'  bill,  that 
they  have  committed  trespass  in  the  destroying  cf  timber,  in  opening 
the  earth  and  in  taking  therefrom  cinnabar  in  large  quantities,  viz : 
sufficient  in  amount  to  produce  at  least  two  thousand  pounds  of  quick- 
silver daily,  or  any  other  quantity,  or  committed  any  trespass  upon 
any  land  of  the  complainants  or  either  of  them. 

7.  As  to  the  matters  set  forth  in  Article  7  of  complainants'  bill  of 
complaint,  the  defendants  deny  that  they  have  caused  any  delay  in  the 
progress  of  said  action  of  ejectment  for  damages,  for  the  purposes  al- 
leged in  said  7th  Article,  or  for  any  other  purposes,  and  they  aver 
and  charge  the  truth  to  be,  that  *if  there  has  been  any  unnecessary 
delay  in  the  progress  of  said  action,  such  delay  has  been  caused  by 
the  complainants  alone.  And  they  refer  to  the  record  of  the  suit  now 
pending  in  this  Court.  And  further,  they  deny  that  they  are  secretly 
carrying  away  quicksilver  beyond  the  jurisdiction  of  this  Court,  and 


214 

aver  that  all  quicksilver  conveyed  away  is  so  conveyed  openly  and 
publicly,  in  the  regular  course  of  their  business.  They  admit  that 
they  ship  away  a  large  portion  of  the  quicksilver  obtained  from  the 
mine,  but  only  for  want  of  sufficient  market  for  the  same  in  Califor- 
nia, and  because  the  works  and  improvements  of  the  mine  and  lands 
of  New  Almaden,  requiring  now,  as  they  have  always  done,  so  large 
and  constant  an  outlay  of  capital,  make  such  shipments  and  sales 
abroad  absolutely  necessary. 

8.  As  to  the  matters  set  forth  in  Article  8  of  complainants'  bill  of 
complaint,  the  defendants,  further  answering,  deny  that  the  proceeds 
of  the  sales  of  said  quicksilver  amount  to  about  the  sum  of  $1,000 
per  day,  and  that  they  are  fraudulently  retaining  said  proceeds  be- 
yond the  jurisdiction  of  this  Court  or  concealing  the  same.  Further, 
they  deny  that  they  have  not  visible  property  within  the  reach  of  the 
process  of  this  Court,  or  subject  thereto,  sufficient  to  satisfy  and  dis- 
charge the  damages  which  the  complainants  would  be  justly  entitled 
to  recover  in  their  said  action  at  law,  if,  in  the  judgment  of  this  court, 
they  should  be  entitled  to  recover  at  all ;  or  that,  unless  they  are 
restrained,  by  the  interposition  of  this  Court,  from  the  commission  of 
what  the  complainants  style  trespasses,  and  from  removing,  selling,  or 
otherwise  disposing  of  the  products  of  said  mines  now  within  the  juris- 
diction of  this  Court,  they,  the  complainants,  will  sustain  great  and  ir- 
reparable injury  in  the  premises,  or  any  injury  at  all. 

The  defendants  aver  and  charge  the  truth  to  be,  that  they  have, 
within  reach  of  the  process  of  this  Court  and  subject  thereto,  proper- 
ty visible,  well  known,  large  and  valuable,  immensely  more  than  suffi- 
cient to  satisfy  any  damage  which  the  complainants  may  sustain  by 
reason  of  anything  in  their  bill  contained  ;  that  those  of  the  defend- 
ants who  do  not  reside  in  California  are  constantly  remitting  to  their 
agents  here,  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  on  the  works  and  improve- 
ments of  the  land  and  mine  of  New  Almaden,  much  mt>re  than  their 
proportion  of  the  amount  received  from  the  sales  of  the  quicksilver — 
the  sole  product  of  the  mine  here  and  elsewhere  ;  that  the  Value  of 
the  said  New  Almaden  mine  and  land  has  been,  and  is,  and  will  be 
for  a  long  time  to  come,  enhanced,  day  by  day,  by  the  labor  and  capi- 
tal and  enterprise  of  the  defendants,  who,  in  full  faith  that  they  are 
the  true  and  lawful  owners  thereof,  by  just  and  legal  title,  obtained  in 
good  faith  and  in  due  form  of  law,  have  undertaken  and  carried  on, 
under  great  discouragements  and  at  a  vast  outlay,  their  works  of  per- 
manent utility,  with  no  expectation^  immediate  reimbursement.  And 
now  if  the  complainants  seek  to  test  in  a  court  of  law  the  title  of  de- 
fendants, they  pray  that  meanwhile  their  works  may  not  be  suspended, 
the  value  of  the  mine  depreciated,  and  themselves  ruined  by  an  in- 
junction upon  their  operations. 

9.  As  to  the  matters  set  forth  in  Article  9  of  complainants'  bill  of 


215 

complaint,  the  defendants  deny  that  they  have  in  their  possession  or 
under  their  control,  within  the  counties  of  Santa  Clara  and  San  Fran- 
cisco, 500,000  pounds  of  quicksilver,  the  produce  of.  the  said  New 
Almaden  mine,  or  anything  like  that  amount ;  but  the  amount  which 
they  actually  have  on  hand  in  the  said  counties  as  well  as  the  sales  of 
the  quicksilver  produced  by  the  said  mine  will  be  more  particularly 
hereinafter  set  forth. 

10.  And  the  defendants  further  answering,  say  that  the  entire 
proceeds  of  said  mining  operations  since  the  first  denouncement  and 
working  of  said  mine  in  1845,  to  the  first  day  of  the  present  month  of 
May,  have  amounted  to  the  sum  of  $192,945  78,  received  from  the 
sales  of  quicksilver,  the  sole  product  of  said  mine  and  lands  of  New  Al- 
maden, viz,  that  the  defendants  and  their  agents  have  received  from  sales 
of  quicksilver  in  California,  consumed  or  to  be  consumed  in  this  coun- 
try, the  sum  of  $30,323  20  ;  from  sales  in  California  of  quicksilver 
shipped  to  foreign  countries,  the  sum  of  $33,729  37  ;  from  sales  of 
quicksilver  in  foreign  countries  the  sum  of  $428,893  19 — making  in 
all  as  the  receipts  of  the  sales  of  the  produce  of  said  mine  and  lands 
of  New  Almaden,  since  the  said  month  of  November,  1845,  the  sum 
of  $492,945  78,  and  no  more  ;  and  that  the  sales  of  the  produce  of 
the  said  mine  mid  lands,  which  have  been  made  and  are  unpaid  for, 
being  now  due,  amount  to  just  $43,594  50,  and  no  more  ;  thus  mak- 
ing the  entire  amount  of  sales  of  the  produce  of  the  said  mine  and 
lands,  received  and  expected  to  be  received,  $535,540  28,  and  no 
more. 

That  since  the  said  month  of  November,  A.  D.  1845,  the  defend- 
ants and  those  under  whom  they  hold,  have  expended  a  large  sum  of 
money  in  the  working  of  said  mine  and  improvements  on  the  said  land 
of  New  Almaden,  in  the  construction  of  furnaces,  roads,  buildings, 
machinery,  etc.,  viz.,  the  sum  of  $978,114  11  ;  that  from  the  said 
time  up  to  the  present,  they  have  received  and  sold  quicksilver  as  the 
produce  of  said  mine  and  land  to  the  amount  of  $535,540  28,  and  no 
more,  And  even  of  that  sum  there  is  now  due  and  unreceived,  $42,- 
594  50,  making  the  amount  of  money  expended  on  said  mine  and 
lands  in  labor  and  permanent  improvements  over  and  above  the  amount 
received  therefrom  equal  to  $485,168  33  over  and  above  the  entire 
amount  of  sales  of  the  produce  of  said  mine  and  lands,  including  all 
monies  due  and  unpaid  and  to  become  due,  equal  to  $442,574  83  : 
That,  moreover,  in  the  above  amount  of  expenses  no  allowance  is  made 
for  interest  on  the  capital  expended  on  said  improvements  several 
years  ago,  and  which  capital  is  still  unreturned  and  unpaid,  nor  for  the 
the  time  and  labor  which  the  defendants  have  personally  given 
and  devoted  to  the  works  and  improvements  on  the  said  mine  and 
lands. 

That  the  defendants  are  now  engaged  in  erecting  large  buildings  of 


216 

brick  and  stone,  in  constructing  a  road  and  opening  a  tunnel  or  adit 
into  said  mine,  which  works  they  expect  to  complete  within  the  next 
few  months  at  a  cost  of  not  less  than  from  160,000  to  $80,000. 

11.  And  the  defendents  further  answering  say,  that  the  average 
sale  of  the  proceeds  of  said  mine  and  land  have  been  from  the  month 
of  November,  A.  D.  1845,  to  the  first  of  the  present  month  of  May, 
of  the  value  of  $ 227  88-100  per  day,  and  no  more  ;  and  that  the 
average  expenditure  in  improvements  and  works  in  said  mine  and  land 
during  the  same  period,  have  been  of  the  value  of  $416  21-100  per 
day  ;  and  that  the  entire  proceeds  of  said  mine  and  land,  during  the 
same  period,  including  all  the  quicksilver  sold  and  unpaid  for,  and  all 
on  hand  and  unsold,  allowing  a  fair  estimate  for  the  prices  likely  to  be 
received  for  the  quicksilver  to  be  sold,  and  deducting  the  probable  losses 
and  expenses  in  making  such  sales,  will  be  of  the  average  value  of  $319 
74-100  per  day,  and  no  more  ;  while  the  average  daily  expenses  for 
the  works,  buildings,  etc.,  erected  and  constructed,  and  for  materials 
purchased  and  used,  for  labor  employed  in  producing  the  quicksilver 
and  transporting  it  to  market,  of  the  value  of  $416  21-100  per  day ; 
thus  leaving  the  defendants  losers  of  a  considerable  sum  of  money 
each  day,  which  sum  amounts  in  all  at  the  present  time  to  not  less 
than  $226,713  10  ;  a  sum  of  money  which  they  can  only  expect  to 
receive  back  after  a  long  term  of  years,  when  labor  shall  become  less 
expensive  in  California,  when  the  consumption  of  quicksilver  shall  in- 
crease in  this  country,  and  when  the  necessary  works  and  improve- 
ments on  the  mine  and  land  shall  be  completed. 

And  the  defendants  say  that  they  have  in  their  possession  and  under 
their  control  in  the  city  of  San  Francisco,  55,275  pounds  of  quicksil- 
ver, and  no  more,  which,  after  paying  the  cost  of  flasks,  storage  and 
commissions  of  sale,  will  not  yield  the  nett  sum  of  more  than  $20,000  ; 
that  the  amount  in  their  possession  and  under  their  control  in  the  coun- 
ty of  Santa  Clara  is  not  of  greater  value  than  $25,000,  and  if  imme- 
diately brought  into  market,  would  not,  in  all  probability,  yield  any- 
thing like  that  sum. 

12.  The  defendants,  in  their  answer  foregoing,  having  answered  all 
and  singular  the  allegations  and  interrogatories  of  the  complainants' 
bill,  submit  to  the  Court  with  what  equity,  the  premises  considered, 
the  complainants  ask  for  the  production  of  the  title  papers  and  docu- 
ments of  the  defendants,  especially  before  the  production  and  filing  of 
any  on  the  part  of  the  complainants. 

And  they  further  submit,  that  all  the  pretensions  of  the  complain- 
ants set  up  to  the  lands  and  mines  in  the  possession  of  the  defendants, 
are  against  equity  and  good  conscience,  and  even  scandalous  and  im- 
pertinent ;  that  the  said  Roman,  Stuart,  Hepburn  and  Thorne  have 
obtained  the  said  pretended  agreement  from  the  said  widow  and  chil- 
dren, and  instituted  the  said  suit  at  law,  and  filed  this  their  bill  in 


217 

equity,  and  circulated  stories  prejudicial  to  the  defendants'  title,  and 
in  various  ways  attempted  to  interfere  with  their  operations,  hoping 
that  the  defendants,  most  of  whom  reside  in  a  foreign  country,  rather 
than  endure  these  things,  will  purchase  a  peace,  and  thereby  enrich 
the  said  Roman,  Stuart,  Hepburn  and  Thorne. 

And  these  defendants  deny  all  and  all  manner  of  unlawful  combina- 
tion and  confederacy,  wherewith  they,  by  the  said  bill,  are  charged, 
without  this,  that  there  is  any  other  matter,  cause  or  thing  in  the  said 
complainants'  said  bill  of  complaint  contained,  material  or  necessary 
for  these  defendants  to  make  answer  unto,  and  not  herein  and  hereby 
well  and  sufficiently  answered,  confessed,  traversed  and  avoided  or  de- 
nied, is  true  to  the  knowledge  or  belief  of  these  defendants ;  all 
which  matters  and  things  these  defendants  are  ready  to  aver,  maintain 
and  prove,  as  this  Honorable  Court  shall  direct,  and  humbly  pray  to 
be  here  dismissed  with  their  reasonable  costs  and  charges  in  this  be- 
half most  wrongfully  sustained. 

By  their  Attorneys, 

HALLECK,  PEACHY  &  BILLINGS. 

District  Court  of  the  United  States,  ) 
Northern  District  of  California.  \ 

Before  Henry  B.  Janes,  a  Commissioner  of  said  Court,  in  the  City 
of  San  Francisco,  I,  John  Parrott,  one  of  the  defendants  named  in 
the  foregoing  answer,  being  duly  sworn  depose  and  say  that  the  mat- 
ters and  things  set  forth  in  the  foregoing  answer,  as  of  the  knowledge 
of  the  defendants  are  true,  and  those  stated  upon  their  information 
and  belief,  I  believe  to  be  true. 

JOHN  PARROTT. 

Sworn  to  this  4th  day  of  May,  A.  D.  1852,  before  me, 

HENRY  B.  JANES, 
U.  S.  Commissioner. 


Here  follows  "A,"— (Map.) 


B. 

Know  all  men  by  these  Presents  :  That  the  undersigned,  Dona  Za- 
carias  Bernal,  Jose*  Ygnacio  Berreyesa,  Carmen  Berreyesa,  Loreto 

22 


218      - 

Berreyesa,  Nemisio  Berreyesa,  Encarnacion  Berreyesa,  Fernando  Ber- 
reyesa, Magdalena  Berreyesa,  for  themselves,  and  Jose*  Ygnacio  in  the 
name  of  his  brothers,  Jose'  de  los  Santas  Berreyesa,  Francisco  Berre- 
yesa and  Santiago  Berreyesa,  do  give  ample,  full  and  sufficient  power 
to  James  M.  Jones,  attorney,  and  resident  in  the  town  of  San  Josd, 
to  the  end  that  he,  as  our  attorney  adlitem,  may  institute  a  suit  in  our 
name,  in  the  proper  court  of  law,  against  a  certain  Shillaber  and 
others,  in  order  to  annul  a  fraudulent  sale  of  lands  of  the  Rancho  of 
San  Vicente,  belonging  to  us,  in  which  pretended  sale  the  said  Shilla- 
bar  and  his  agents  have  caused  persons  not  thereto  authorized  to  sign 
a  doed  of  sale  declaring  that  we  have  sold  not  only  the  said  portion  of 
the  Rancho  of  San  Vicente,  but  likewise  the  lands  of  the  mine  of  New 
Almaden,  the  mine  itself  and  the  site  of  its  works,  which  do  not  be- 
long to  us  by  any  title. 

And  in  consideration  of  the  heavy  responsibility  which  the  said  Shil- 
laber and  his  agents  have  endeavored  to  fix  upon  us,  and  the  serious 
injuries  which  fall  upon  us  in  this  fraudulent  sale,  we  declare  that  it  is 
null,  false  and  illegal  in  all  its  clauses,  for  the  reasons  already  set 
forth,  and  for  others  :  And  in  virtue  whereof  we  give  this  power  of 
attorney  for  the  purposes  above  mentioned,  and  we  ratify  and  confirm 
all  the  legal  acts  of  our  said  attorney  ;  signing  these  presents  at  Santa 
Clara  on  the  7th  day  of  November,  1849. 

Carmen  Berreyesa,  x 
Encarnacion  Berreyesa,  x 
Zacarias  Bernal,  x  Loreto  Berreyesa,  x 

Magdalina  Berreyesa,  x 

Fernando  Berreyesa,  x  For  my  brothers,  Jose  Santiago 

Santiago  Berreyesa  and  Francisco  Jose  Santos  Ber- 

Witness :  Robert  Birnie,  reyesa,    Francisco  Berreyesa, 

Witness:  Macsimo  Z.  Fernando,      Ygna6io  Berreyesa, 
Jose  S.  Berreyesa,        Nemesio  Berreyesa. 

I,  Geo.  Penn  Johnson,  Clerk  of  the  Circuit  Court  of  the  United 
States  for  the  Districts  of  California,  do  hereby  certify  the  fore- 
going to  be  a  true  copy  of  the  original  answer  in  above  cause  on 
file  in  my  office.     Witness  my  hand  and  seal  of  said  Court,  this  21 


August,  1857. 


SEAL, 


GEO.  PEN  JOHSTON, 

Attest,  Cutler  McAllister, 

D.  C. 


Filed,  Aug.  21, 1857.  W.  H.  Chevers, 

Dep.  Clerk. 


.  219 
["  0.  H.  No.  50."] 

CERTIFIED  TRANSCRIPT   FROM  THIRD  JUDICIAL  DIS- 
TRICT COURT. 

Maria  Y.  Bernal  de  Berreyesa, 

ET  ALS. 

vs. 
James  Alexander  Forbes,  and 
Robert  Walkinshaw.  j 

Proceedings  had  in  the  District  Court  of  the  Third  Judicirl  District 
of  the  State  of  California  in  and  for  the  countp  of  Santa  Clara. 
Before  the  Hon.  J.  R.  Watson,  Judge  of  said  Court. 

State  op  California,      ) 
County  of  Santa  Clara,    j     . 

District  Court,  August  Term,  A.  D.  1850. 

To  the  Hon.  J.  H.  Watson,  Judge  of  the  Third  Judicial  District, 
for  the  County  of  Santa  Clara  State  aforesaid. 

The  complaint  of  Maria  Y.  Bernal  de  Berreyesa,  wife  of  Jose* 
Reyes  Berreyesa,  of  I.  Ignacio,  Santiago,  Jose*  de  los  Santos, 
Nemesio,  Francisco  and  Fernando  Berreyesa:  and  of  Maria  del 
Carmen  Berreyesa  and  her  husband,  Lorenzo  Pinedo,  of  Lore  to 
Berreyesa  and  her  husband  Juan  Bojorguez  and  of  Magdalena 
Berreyesa  and  her  husband  Maximo  Fernandez,  and  of  Encarnacion 
Berreyesa,  by  his  guardian,  William  R.  Bassham,  all  residents  of  said 
county  and  State,  and  heirs  of  their  father  Jose*  R.  Berreyesa,  de- 
ceased, respectfully  shows : 

That  your  complainants  are  in  actual  possession  as  owners  of  a 
certain  tract  of  land  in  said  county  of  Santa  Clara,  known  as  the 
Canada  de  los  Capitancillos,  or  Rancho  de  San  Vincente,  and  bounded 
and  described  as  follows,  viz.  on  the  north  by  the  low  hills  near  the 
lands  of  the  Pueblo  de  San  Jose,  on  the  south  by  the  Sierra  Azul,  on 
the  east  by  the  Laurel  Hills,  and  on  the  west  by  the  Rancho  de  los 
Capitancillos,  or  of  Justo  Larios,  which  boundary  commences  at  the 
junction  of  the  Alamitos  and  dry  creeks,  and  runs  thence  south- 
wardly, passing  the  hills  or  lomita  in  the  centre  of  the  valley  towards 
the  east,  to  the  Sierra :  That  said  tract  was  granted  with  said  bound- 
aries to  the  said  Jose"  R.  Berreyesa,  by  Governor  J.  B.  Alvarado,  on 
the  20th  day  of  August,  A.  D.  1842,  was  immediately  taken  posses- 
sion of  by  the  said  Berreyesa,  who  remained  in  quiet  possession  as 
>wner  until  his  death,  when  your  complainants,  his  heirs,  took  and 


220  * 

have  ever  since  retained  actual,  peaceable,  public  and  uninterrupted 
possession  thereof  as  owners.  And  now  your  complainants  aver  that 
James  A.  Forbes  and  Robert  Walkinshaw,  also  of  the  said  county  and 
State,  with  divers  other  persons  unknown  to  complainants,  on  or  about 
the  15th  day  of  August,  1845,  and  at  divers  other  times  between  the 
said  date  and  the  day  of  filing  this  complaint,  went  with  force  and 
arms,  and  trespassed  upon  the  said  land,  by  cutting  and  carrying 
away  the  wood,  timber  and  limestone  of  your  complainants,  without 
their  knowledge  or  consent,  whereby  they  have  been  damaged  to  the 
amount  of  the  said  wood,  timber,  and  limestone,  to  wit,  in  the  full 
sum  of  twenty  thousand  dollars ;  for  which  sum  your  complainants 
pray  judgment  against  the  said  Forbes  and  Walkinshaw  jointly  and 
severally,  who  they  also  pray  may  be  summoned  to  appear  and  answer 
this  complaint  and  that  they  be  enjoined  and  prohibited  from  farther 
trespassing  within  said  boundaries. 

JONES,  HESTER  &  VOORHIES, 

For  Comprnts. 
Filed  August  26,  A.  D.  1850. 

H.  C.  MELONE,  Clerk, 
0.  H.  Allen,  D.  C. 


DISTRICT  COURT  OF  THE  THIRD  JUDICIAL  DISTRICT. 

State  op  California, 
County  op  Santa  Clara. 

The  People  of  the  State  of  California :  To  James  A.  Forbes  and 
Robert  Walkinshaw.  You  are  hereby  summoned  to  appear  in  the 
District  Court  of  the  Third  Judicial  District,  held  in  the  city  of  San 
Jose*  and  county  of  Santa  Clara,  to  answer  unto  the  complaint  of 
Maria  Y.  Bernal  Berreyesa  and  others  filed  in  this  Court,  within  ten 
days  after  service  of  this  writ. 

*      Witness  the  Hon.  John  H.  Watson,  Judge  of  the  Third 

]  seal  |  Judicial  District,  under  my  private  seal,  there  being  no 

' '  official  seal  yet  provided  at  office,  this  26th  day  of  August, 

A.  D.  1850. 

H.  C.  MELONE,  Clerk, 
0.  H.  Allen,  D.  C. 

Came  into  my  hands  this  27th  day  of  August,  1850. 

JOHN  YONTZ, 
Sheriff. 


221 

Served  by  leaving  a  copy  of  this  summons,  also  a  copy  of  the  com- 
plaint, with  Jas.  A.  Forbes  and  Robert  Walkinshaw,  personally. 
August  28th,  1850. 

JOHN  YONTZ, 

Sheriff. 
S.  fees,  service,  $6  00 
Mileage  .         .    7  50 


,3  50 


State  of  California, 
County  of  Santa  Clara. 

DISTRICT  COURT  OF  THIRD  JUDICIAL  DISTRICT. 

Maria  Y.  Bernal  Berreyesa, 
Wife  of  Jose  Reyes  Berreyesa, 

AND  OTHERS. 
V. 

James  A.  Forbes 

and 

Robert  Walkinshaw. 

The  defendants  appear  in  Court  and  demur  to  the  complaint  of  the 
complainants,  and  for  cause  of  demurrer  set  forth : 

1.  That  the  boundaries  and  description  of  the  land  upon  which 
the  complainants  allege  a  trespass  to  have  been  committed  by  the 
defendants,  are,  as  stated  in  said  complaint,  so  uncertain  and  indefi- 
nite as  to  render  it  impossible  for  the  defendants  to  identify  the  same 
and  to  answer  said  complaints. 

2.  That.the  said  complaint  is  otherwise  informal,  insufficient  and 
defective. 

The  defendants  therefore  pray  this  Hon.  Court  whether  they  are 
bound  in  law  to  answer  said  complaint. 

W.  B.  ALMOND,  PEACHEY  &  BILLINGS, 

Attorneys  for  Defendants. 

Filed  Sept.  5, 1850. 

H.  C.  Melone, 
Clerk. 


222 

Berreyesa  et  al.    ) 

vs.  >  Ejectment. 

A.  Forbes,  et  al.  ) 


The  Plaintiffs  in  this  case  move  the  Court  for  an  order  of  survey, 
and  the  County  Surveyor  of  Santa  Clara  county  be  appointed  to  run 
the  lines  of  the  tract  of  land  granted  by  the  Mexican  Government  to 
the  ancestor  of  the  plaintiffs,  and  that  he  make  a  true  survey  of  the 
same  and  return  a  certified  plot  thereof  to  this  Court  at  the  earliest 
practicable  moment. 

Ordered  accordingly,  Sept.  6,  1850,  and  that  defendants  counsel 
be  notified  that  the  Surveyor  will  proceed  to  the  premises  on  Monday 
the  9th  of  Sept.  inst. 

JOHN  H.  WATSON, 
Judge  3d  Judicial  Dist.  Cal. 

Filed,  Sept.  6, 1850.  H.  C.  MELONE, 

Clerk. 

IN  THE  DISTRICT  COURT  OF  SANTA  CLARA  COUNTY. 
Maria  Y.  Bernal  Berreyesa,    ^ 

AND  OTHERS. 

vs.  > 

James  A.  Forbes,  and 
Robert  Walkinshaw.        j 

The  Defendants  move  the  Court  to  order  the  Plaintiffs  herein  to 
furnish  said  defendants  or  their  attorney,  with  a  copy  of  the  title, 
grant,  or  patent,  under  which,  by  an  order  of  this  Court,  it  is  pro- 
posed to  have  a  survey  made  by  the  County  Surveyor,  at  least  one  day 
before  said  survey  shall  be  commenced. 

ALMOND,  PEACHY  &  BILLINGS, 

Attorneys  for  Defts. 
Filed,  Sept.  6, 1850. 

H.  C.  MELONE,  Clerk. 


IN  THE  THIRD  JUDICIAL  DISTRICT,  SANTA  CLARA  CO. 
Maria  Y.  Bernal  Berreyesa, 

AND  OTHERS. 

vs. 
James  Alex.  Forbes,  and 
Robert  Walkinshaw.         j 

In  this  case  the  Defendants  move  the  Court  to  set  aside  the  order 
of  Survey  made  herein  for  the  following  reasons. 


223 

1.  That  said  order  was  made  without  any  notice  to,  and  in  the 
absence  of  defendants  or  either  of  them,  or  of  their  attorney. 

2.  Said  order  does  not  set  out  the  grant,  or  title,  or  patent,  of 
the  Mexican  Government,  or  even  describe  the  same,  so  as  to  apprise 
defendants  of  the  limits  intended  for  survey. 

ALMOND,  PEACHY  &  BILLINGS, 
Attorneys  for  Defts. 
Filed  Sept.  6, 1850. 

H.  C.  MELONE. 
Set  aside. 


IN  THE  DISTRICT  COURT  OF  SANTA  CLARA  COUNTY. 

Maria  Bernal  de  Berreyesa,    ^ 
Wife  of  Jose*   Reyes  Berreyesa 
et  al. 
vs.  y 

James  A.  Forbes 

AND 

Robert  Walkinshaw. 

And  the  said  defendants  come  and  for  answer  say  that  they  are 
not  guilty  of  the  said  supposed  trespass,  as  charged  against  them  in 
the  complaint  of  the  said  complainants,  or  of  any  or  either  of  them ; 
and  the  said  defendants  therefore  deny  all  the  allegations  and  charges 
made  by  the  said  complainants  in  their  said  complaint  against  them 
the  said  defendants,  and  of  this  the  said  defendants  put  themselves 
upon  the  county,  &c. 

PEACHY,  HALLECK  &  ALMOND, 

Attorneys  for  Defies. 

And  for  a  further  answer  to  the  said  complaint,  the  said  defendants 
say  that  the  said  plaintiffs  ought  not  further  to  have  or  maintain  their 
aforesaid  action  thereof  against  them,  because  they  say  that  the  said 
close  in  the  said  complaint  mentioned,  and  in  which  the  said  supposed 
trespasses  are  charged  to  have  been  committed  by  the  said  defendants, 
now  is  and  at  the  said  several  times  when  said  supposed  trespasses 
are  charged  to  have  been  committed,  was  the  close,  soil  and 
freehold  of  the  said  defendants  Robert  Walkinshaw,  to  wit,  at  the 
county  of  Santa  Clara  aforesaid.  Wherefore  the  said  Robert  Walk- 
inshaw in  his  own  right,  and  the  said  James  A.  Forbes  as  his  servant, 
and  by  his  command,  and  with  his  permission,  at  the  said  several 
times,  when,  &c,  committed,  if  any  trespasses  at  all  were  committed, 
the  said  several  supposed  trespasses  in  the  said  complaint  mentioned, 


224 

in  the  said  close,  in  which,  &c,  so  being  the  close,  soil  and  freehold, 
of  the  said  Robert  Walkinshaw,  as  they  lawfully  might  for  the  cause 
aforesaid,  which  on  the  said  several  supposed  trespasses  if  any, 
whereof  the  said  complainants  have  complained  against  them.  And 
this  they  are  ready  to  verify,  &c. 

HALLECK,  PEACHY  &  ALMOND, 


Filed,  Sept.  19, 1850. 


Attorneys  for  Defts. 

H.  C.  MELONE, 

Clerk. 


Maria  Y.  Bernal  de  Berreyesa, 
Wife  of  Jose  Reyes  Berreyesa, 
of  Ignaoio,  and  others. 
vs. 
James  A.  Forbes, 

AND 

Robert  Walkinshaw. 


>     In  Trespass. 


And  now  come  the  plaintiffs  by  their  counsel,  and  move  the  Court 
for  a  survey  by  the  County  Surveyor  of  this  county,  of  the  bounda- 
ries of  the  tract  of  land  described  in  the  plaintiffs'  declaration  in  this 
suit,  the  said  tract  of  land  containing  the  following  boundary,  to  wit, 
on  the  north  by  the  low  hills  near  the  lands  of  the  Pueblo  de  San 
Jos6,  on  the  south  by  the  Sierra  Azul,  on  the  east  by  the  Laurel 
Hills,  and  on  the  west  by  the  Rancho  de  los  Capitancillos,  or  of  Justo 
Larios,  and  which  boundary  commences  at  the  junction  of  the  Alamitos 
and  dry  creeks,  and  runs  thence  southwardly,  passing  the  hills  or 
Cormeta  in  the  center  of  the  valley  towards  the  east  to  the  Sierra, 
and  being  the  same  land  granted  to  said  Jose  R.  Berreyesa  by 
Governor  J.  B.  Alvarado,  on  the  20th  day  of  August,  1842,  and  that 
the  said  Surveyor  proceed  upon  the  premises  on  next  Monday  morn- 
ing, for  the  purpose  of  making  said  survey,  and  report  his  survey 
together  with  a  plot  of  the  ground  to  this  Court  as  soon  as  the  same 
shall  be  completed,  for  the  purpose  of  evidence  for  the  plaintiffs  in 
the  above  entitled  cause  upon  the  trial  thereof  in  this  court. 

JONES,  VOORHIES  &  HESTER, 

For  Plaintiffs. 

Sept.  7, 1850. 

Filed  Sept.  7, 1850. 

H.  C.  MELONE, 
Clerk. 


225 

IN   THE   DISTRICT   COURT   FOR  THE   COUNTY  OF 
SANTA  CLARA. 

State  of  California, 

Berreyesa  et  al.      } 

vs.  >  August  Term,  1850. 

Forbes  &  Walklnshaw.    \ 


The  Defendants  and  their  attorneys,  Allman  &  Halleck,  in  this 
cause, will  take  notice  that  the  trial  of  this  cause,  upon  an  issue  of 
law  will  be  had  by  the  Court  in  the  Court  House  of  said  County,  at 
3  o'clock  on  the  16th  day  of  Sept.  1850. 

JONES,  VOORHIES  &  HESTER, 

For  Plaintiffs. 
Filed  Sept.  16,1850. 

H.  C.  MELONE, 
Clerk. 


Maria  Y.  Bernal  de  Berreyesa,  n 
Wife  of  Jose  Reyes  Berreyesa, 

ET  AL. 

vs.  y 

James  A.  Forbes 

AND 

Robert  Walklnshaw. 

The  plaintiffs  by  their  counsel  now  move  the  Court  for  a  rule  re- 
quiring the  defendants  on  next  Monday  the  16th  inst.,  to  produce  in 
Court,  and  file  amongst  the  papers  in  the  above  entitled  cause,  for 
the  inspection  of  the  counsel  of  the  plaintiffs,  certain  papers  of  a 
pretended  denouncement,  made  in  1845  or  thereabouts,  of  the  Alma- 
den  mines,  upon  the  land  in  the  plaintiffs  complaint  herein  mentioned, 
pretended  to  be  made  by  one  Castearas,  a  military  officer.  Also  cer- 
tain papers  .of  a  pretended  denouncement  of  said  mines  made  by  said 
Forbes,  or  made  by  said  Forbes  and  others,  in  1848,  or  thereabouts ; 
also  all  the  pretended  papers  of  a  confirmation  of  either  or  both  of 
said  denouncements,  pretended  to  be  made  by  the  Mexican  Govern- 
ment ;  also  all  the  papers  of  a  pretended  grant  made  by  the  Mexican 
Government  to  him  the  said  Forbes,  or  to  him  and  others,  of  two 
leagues  of  land  more  or  less,  upon  which  said  mines  are  situated,  to- 
gether with  all  other  paper  or  papers,  connected  with  the  title  to  said 
Almaden  mines,  or  the  land  upon  which  the  same  is  situated,  upon 


226 

which  the  said  defendants  intend  to  found  their  claim  to  said  land,  or 
to  said  mines,  or  their  right  to  commit  the  trespasses  in  said  com- 
plaint mentioned,  as  a  defense  in  said  suit ;  the  inspection  of  the  same 
by  the  counsel  for  said  plaintiffs  being  necessary  to  enable  them  to 
prosecute  the  suit.  And  which  motion  is  granted  by  the  Court,  and 
the  said  papers  or  copies  thereof  are  ordered  to  be  produced  accord- 
ing to  said  motion. 

State  of  California, 
County  of  Santa  Clara. 

James  M.  Jones,  the  attorney  for  the  plaintiffs  in  the  suit  within 
mentioned,  states  on  oath,  that  he  believes  that  facts  mentioned  in 
the  within  rule  are  true,  and  that  the  exhibition  of  of  said  papers  in 
Court,  if  any  such  exist,  as  required  by  the  within  mentioned  rule, 
are  necessary  to  the  prosecution  of  said  suit  for  the  said  plaintiffs. 

J.  M.  JONES. 
Sworn   and  subscribed  before   me   this  13th  day   of  September, 
A.  D.  1850. 

H.  C.  MELONE, 

Clerk. 
Rule  granted.  JNO.  H.  WATSON, 

Judge. 
Filed,  Sept.  13,  1850.  H.  C.  MELONE, 


DISTRICT  COURT  OF  THIRD  JUDICIAL  DISTRICT. 


ss. 


State  of  California, 
County  of  Santa  Clara. 

James  A.  Forbes, 

Robert  Walkinshaw, 

ads. 

J 

And  the  said  defendants  for  a  further  answer  in  this  behalf  say  as 
to  so  much  of  the  said  supposed  trespasses,  in  the  said  complaint 
mentioned,  as  are  therein  alleged  to  have  been  committed  by  the 
defendants  at  a  time  ariterior  to  one  year  next  preceeding  the  passage 
of  the  act  entitled  u  An  Act  defining  the  time  for  commencing  civil 
actions,"  that  the  complainants  ought  not  to  have  or  maintain  their 
aforesaid  action  thereof  against  them  the  defendants,  because  they 
say  that  by  the  laws  of  California  before  the  passage  of  the  said  act, 


227 

all  suits  for  trespass  were  barred  by  the  expiration  of  one  year  from 
the  day  on  which  the  trespass  was  committed,  unless  suit  was  insti- 
tuted therefor  within  said  year.  And  this  the  defendants  are  ready 
to  verify,  wherefore  they  pray  judgment,  &c. 

flALLECK,  PEACHY  &  BILLINGS, 

For  Defendants. 
Filed  Sept.  19,  1850. 

H.  C.  MELONE, 

Clerk. 


IN  THE  THIRD   JUDICIAL   DISTRICT   COURT   IN   AND 

FOR  THE   COUNTY  OF   SANTA   CLARA,  STATE  OF 

CALIFORNIA. 


M.  Z.  Berreyesa,  et  als. 

vs. 

IiSIDORO  DE  LA  TORRE,  ET  ALS. 


To  the  Hon.  JOHN  H.  WATSON, 

Judge  of  the  Third  Judicial  District  Court. 

The  complaint  of  Maria  Zac  de  Bernal  Berreyesa,  widow  of  Jose* 
Reyes  Berreyesa,  of  Maria  del  Carmen  Berreyesa  and  her  husband 
Lorenzo  Pinedo,  of  Loresa  Berreyesa  and  her  husband,  Juan  Bojor- 
ques,  of  Santiago,  Jose  de  los  Santos  Berreyesa,  Nemesio  Berreyesa, 
Francisco  Berreyesa,  of  Magdalena  Berreyesa  and  her  husband 
Maximo  Fernandez,  and  of  William  R.  Bassham,  tutor  of  Jose'  Encarn 
Berreyesa,  all  children  and  heirs  of  said  J.  R.  Berreyesa,  and  of 
Richard  Roman,  James  Hepburn  and  Charles  V.  Stuart,  all  which 
complainants  reside  in  said  county  of  Santa  Clara; 
Respectfully  shows : 

That  your  complainants,  the  widow  and  heirs  of  said  J.  R.  Berrey- 
esa, are  the  lawful  owners  and  possessors  of  a  certain  tract  of  land 
situate  in  said  county  of  Santa  Clara,  known  as  the  Rancho  de  la 
Canada  de  los  Capitancillos,  alias  Ranch  of  San  Vicente,  and 
bounded  on  the  north  by  the  low  hills  near  the  lands  of  the  Pueblo  of 
San  Jose*,  on  the  south  by  the  Sierra,  on  the  east  by  the  Laurel  hills, 
alias  lomeria,  and  on  the  west  by  the  Rancho  of  William  Wiggins, 
formerly  of  Justo  Larios,  which  western  line  commences  at  the  angle 
formed  by  the  junction  of  the  arroyo  seco,  or  dry  creek,  and  Alamitos 
creek,  and  runs  thence  south  by  the  eastern  brow  or  slope  of  the  hills 
in  the  center  of  the  valley  to  the  Sierra.  That  the  whole  of  said 
tract  within  said  boundaries  was  granted  to  Jose'  Reyes  Berreyesa,  on 
August  20th,  1842,  by  Governor  Juan  B.  Alvarado,  which  grant 


228 

was  duly  recorded,  and  the  said  J.  R.  Berreyesa  was  then  and  during 
five  years  previous,  and  has  ever  since  remained  in  actual,  peaceable, 
public  and  uninterrupted  possession,  in  good  faith  as  owner  of  said 
tract.  That  the  said  J.  R.  Berreyesa,  died  in  said  county  in  the 
year  1847,  leaving  his  children  as  heirs,  and  his  widow  retaining  half 
the  tract  as  her  share  of  the  community,  the  same  having  been  ac- 
quired during  marriage.  That  said  R.  Roman,  Jas  Hepburn,  and  C. 
V.  Stuart,  are  the  lessees  from  said  widow,  and  heirs  of  all  the 
minerals  and  mines,  hacienda,  &c,  on  said  tract  of  land. 

And  now  your  complainants  aver  that  one  Isidoro  de  la  Torre,  of 
Mazatlan,  in  Mexico,  Alexander  Forbes  and  William  Barron,  and 
Eustacho  Barron,  of  Tepic  in  Mexico,  John  Parrot  of  San  Francisco, 
and  James  A.  Forbes  and  Robert  Walkinshaw,  of  Santa  Ciara  county, 
State  of  California,  defendants,  are  in  the  unlawful  possession,  and 
have  been  since  February  1st,  1845,  of  a  large  and  valuable  portion 
of  said  tract  of  land,  and  refuse  to  deliver  the  same  to  your  com- 
plainants, though  duly  requested  so  to  do.  That  the  said  persons 
have  taken  since  the  said  1st  of  February,  1845,  and  still  retain,  un- 
lawful possession  of  all  that  portion  of  said  tract  lying  west  of  the 
Arroyo  de  los  Alamillos,  alias  Alamitos,  with  a  tract  east  of  and  along 
said  Arroyo  de  los  Alamitos,  of  half  a  mile  in  width,  running  to  the 
Sierra  on  both  sides  of  said  Arroyo.  That  the  said  defendants  with- 
out the  consent  of  your  complainants,  have  erected  a  hacienda  of 
buildings,  furnaces,  forges,  and  appurtenances,  on  the  banks  of  said 
Arroyo,  in  the  middle  of  said  complainants  tract,  and  have  tresspassed 
upon  said  land,  by  opening  thereon  and  working  quicksilver,  lime,  and 
other  mines,  and  more  particularly  the  mine  of  New  Almaden,  on  the 
western  portion  of  said  Rancho.  That  the  portion  of  said  Rancho 
thus  unlawfully  taken  possession  of  by  defendants,  is  worth  one  million 
dollars,  and  your  complainants  have  been  damaged  by  the  trespasses 
and  wrongs  of  defendants,  in  the  full  snm  of  one  million  dollars. 
That  the  rents  and  profits  accruing  from  the  said  mine  of  New  Alma- 
den and  appurtenances,  of  which  your  complainants  have  been  unjust- 
ly deprived,  and  which  have  been  enjoyed  by  the  defendants  since 
Feb.  1st,  1845,  amount  to  seven  hundred  thousand  dollars,  and  that 
the  use  of  the  hacienda  and  appurtenances,  with  the  wood,  water, 
lime,  land  and  other  property  and  privileges  of  these  complainants 
during  that  time,  is  well  worth  three  hundred  thousand  dollars. 

Wherefore  your  complainants  pray  that  the  said  defendants  may  be 
duly  cited,  and  ordered,  and  adjudged  to  deliver  forthwith  to  your 
complainants,  the  possession  of  all  the  aforesaid  portions  of  the  said 
tract,  by  them  unjustly  witheld  as  aforesaid  ;  that  any  pretended  claim 
said  defendants  may  set  up  thereto  be  annulled,  and  that  said  defend- 
ants be  jointly  and  severally  condemned  to  pay  to  your  complainants 
the  said  sum  of  one  million  dollars,  as  rents,  profits,  and  damages  for 


229 

the  unlawful  detention  of  said  premises,  and  for  such  other  relief  as 
the  nature  of  the  case  may  demand  &c. 

WELLER  &  JONES, 
Att'ys  for  Complainants. 

Personally  came  Richard  Roman,  one  of  the  above  complainants, 
who  being  duly  sworn  deposes  and  says  that  Isidoro  de  la  Torre,  Alex- 
ander Forbes,  William  Barron  and  Eustachio  Barron  are  non-resi- 
dents of,  and  deponent  believes  are  not  now  in  the  State  of  Califor- 
nia, and  that  the  said  non-residents  are  parties  interested  necessary 
and  proper  to  said  suit,  and  a  cause  of  action  exists  against  said  non- 
residents in  favor  of  complainants. 

RICH.  ROMAN. 
Sworn  to  and  subscribed  at  San  Jose,  this  30th  day  of  September, 
1850,  before  me, 

H.  C.  MELONE, 

Clerk. 

It  is  ordered  in  this  case  that  notice  be  given  to  the  non-resident 
defendants  by  publication  in  the  "  Pacific  News,"  a  newspaper  pub- 
lished in  the  City  of  San  Francisco,  at  least  once  a  month  for  six 
months  in  succession  and  that  a  copy  of  the  summons  and  complaint 
(if  their  residence  is  known)  be  forthwith  deposited  in  the  Post  office 
and  sent  to  them. 

Oct.  2, 1850.  JOHN  H.  WATSON, 

Judge  3d  Judicial  Dist.  Cala. 
Filed  October  5,  1850. 

H.  C.  MELONE, 
Clerk. 


State  op  California, 
County  of  Santa  Clara. 

The  people  of  the  State  of  California,  To  Isidoro  de  la  Torre, 
Alexander  Forbes,  William  Barron,  Eustachio  Barron,  John  Parrot, 
James  A.  Forbes  and  Robert  Walkinshaw.  You  are  hereby  sum- 
moned to  appear  and  answer  unto  the  complaint  of  M.  Z.  Berreyesa 
et  als.  filed  in  this  Court,  within  ten  days  after  service  of  this  writ. 
Witness,      Hon  JNO.  H.  WATSON, 

Judge   of  the    third   Judicial   District   with  with  my 

J  seal  [      private  seal  there  being  no  official   seal  yet  provided  at 

< )      office  this  11th  day  of  October,  A.  D.  1850. 

Test.  H.  C.  MELONE, 
Clerk. 


230 

Served  by  leaving  a  copy  of  the  complaint  with  Robert  Walkin- 
shaw  &  Jas.  A.  Forbes,  personally. 

JOHN  YONTZ, 

Sheriff. 
Oct.  21, 1850. 
S.fees    .     .     $6  00 
Mileage  .     .       7  50 


113  50 


DISTRICT  COURT  OF   THE   THIRD  JUDICIAL  DISTRICT 
IN  AND  FOR  THE  STATE  AND  COUNTY  AFORESAID. 

State  of  California, 
County  of  San  Francisco. 

M.  Z.  Berreyesa 

ET  ALS. 

vs. 

ISIDORO  DE  LA  TORRE 
ET  ALS. 

James  A.  Forbes  and  Robert  "Walkinshaw,  appear  and  demur  to 
the  said  complaint  and  for  the  causes  of  demurrer  set  fotth. 

I.  That  this  Court  has  no  Jurisdiction  of  the  subject  matter  of  this 
action,  so  far  as  it  involves  the  question  of  title  to  the  minerals  being 
on,  under  or  within  the  lands  specified  in  said  complaint. 

II.  That  this  Court  has  no  jurisdiction  of  the  subject  matter  of 
this  action  so  far  as  it  relates  to  the  question  of  title  to  the  lands  spe- 
cified in  said  complaint. 

III.  The  Defendants  do  further  take  objection  by  the  following 
answer  to  matters  which  are  causes  of  demurrer  not  appearing  on  the 
said  complaint.  That  is  to  say,  they  show  and  aver  that  the  proprie- 
tors of  the  land  in  the  complaint  mentioned  as  that  which  the  com- 
plaint alleges  to  be  wrongfully  witheld  from  complainants  are  Alex- 
ander Forbes,  Eustace  Barron,  Wiiliam  Forbes,  Eustace  W.  Barron, 
all  of  Tepic,  in  the  Republic  of  Mexico,  Isodoro  de  la  Torre  of 
Mazatlan,  J.  B.  Jecker  of  the  City  of  Mexico,  James  A.  Forbes 
and  Robert  Walkinshaw  of  Santa  Clara  County,  in  this  State,  John 
Parrot  of  San  Francisco  City  in  this  State,  Martin  La  Piedra  and 
Francisco  Maria  Ortez,  both  of  the  City  of  Mexico,  and  that  the 
Lessees  of  the  said  land  who  now  hold  occupy  and  enjoy  the  same 
under  a  written  contract  of  lease  for  a  term  of  years  to  expire  on  the 


231 

twenty-eighth  day  of  November  A.  D.  one  thousand  eight  hundred 
and  sixty-two,  are  Alexander  Forbes,  Eustace  Barron,  William  Forbes 
and  Eustaee  W.  Barron  of  said  City  of  Tepic,  Isidoro  de  la  Torre  of 
Mazatlan,  J.  B.  Jecker  of  Mexico,  William  Gibbs  &  Co.  of  Lima  in 
Peru,  and  Theodore  Shillaber  of  the  City  of  San  Francisco  in  this 
State.  The  said  Defendants  further  show  that  the  said  Alexander 
Forbes  Eustace  Barron,  William  Forbes,  Eustace  W.  Barron,  Isidoro 
de  la  Torre,  J.  B.  Jecker,  James  A.  Forbes,  Robert  Walkinshaw, 
Martin  la  Piedra,  Francisco  Maria  Ortez  and  William  Gibbs  are 
foreigners  (the  other  partners  in  the  firm  of  William  Gibbs  &  Co. 
being  unknown  to  the  said  Defendants)  and  not  citizens  of  the  United 
States,  or  of  any  State  or  Territory  or  possession  thereof  and  that 
their  right  and  title  to  the  said  land  and  the  minerals  therein  con- 
tained was  derived  by  grant  and  denouncement  from  the  Supreme 
Government  of  Mexico,  and  in  accordance  with  Mexican  law  prior  to 
the  late  declaration  of  War  by  the  United  States  against  the  Repub- 
lic of  Mexico.  The  said  defendants  therefore  take  the  following  objec- 
tion to  this  action  : 

1.  That  this  Court  has  no  jurisdiction  -of  the  subject  of  this 
action.      * 

2.  That  there  is  a  defect  of  parties  defendant. 

3.  That  the  complaint  does  not  state  facts  sufficient  to  constitute  a 
cause  of  action. 

4.  That  the  complaint  is  in  other  respects  informal  insufficient  and 
defective. 

The  Defendants  therefore  pray  judgment  whether  they  are  bound 
to  answer  said  complaint  further  than  they  have  already  answered 
it. 

HALLECK,  PEACHY  &  BILLINGS, 
&  WM.  B,  ALMOND, 

Defts.  Attys. 


Filed  Oct.  21st,  1850. 


H.  C.  MELONE, 

Clerk. 


DISTRICT  COURT  OF  THE  THIRD  JUDICIAL  DISTRICT. 


State  of  California,        )     , 
County  of  Santa  Clara.    J  sc  ' 


The  People  of  the  State  of  California.  To  Isidore  De  la  Torre, 
Alexander  Forbes,  William  Barron,  Eustachio  Barron,  John  Parrot 
James  A.  Forbes  and  Robert  Walkinshaw,  Greeting — You  are  hereby 


232 

summoned  to  appear  and  answer  the  complaint  of  M.  Z.  Berreyesa  et 
als  filed  in  this  Court,  on  the  fourth  Monday  in  April  A.  D.  1851. 
Witness     Hon.  JOHN  H.  WATSON, 

n  Judge   of  the   third  Judicial  District  Court  with   my 

L  s    (      private  Seal,  there  being  no  Official  Seal  yet  provided  at 
—  >      office  this  21st  day  of  October,  A.  D.  1850. 

H.  C.  MELONE, 

Clerk. 
Red  Nov.  .7, 1850. 

Returned  served  personally  on  Defendant  Parrott  in  the  City  of 
San  Francisco  on  the  7th  day  of  November  1850,  by  delivering  him 
a  copy  of  this  summons  and  a  copy  of  complaint. 

K  J.C.HAYS, 

Sheriff  County  of  San  Francisco. 
Nov.  7, 1850.  J/  A.  FREANOR, 

Dept. 
Shffsfee   H  00 


DISTRICT   COURT   OF   THIRD   JUDICIAL  DISTRICT,  IN 
THE  STATE  AND  COUNTY  AFORESAID. 

State  op  California, 

County  of  Santa  Clara. 

Jambs  A.  Forbes, 

Robert  Walkinsham 

ads. 

Maria  Bernal  de  Berreyesa 

et  ALS. 

The  Defendants  in  this  cause  in  answer  to  the  order  of  Court  made 
on  the  13th  day  of  September  A.  D.  1850,  requiring  the  Defendants 
to  produce  in  Court  certain  papers  upon  which  they  intend  to  rely  as 
a  defence  in  this  cause  answer  and  say  : 

That  they  have  exercised  all  due  diligence  to  procure  and  produce 
the  said  papers  in  Court,  by  writing  immediately  on  the  receipt  of  the 
above  mentioned  order,  to  the  parties  in  Mexico,  who  hold  them,  but 
to  this  date  the  Defendants  have  not  received  them,  this  delay  having 
been  caused,  as  Defendants  verily  believe  by  the  failure  of  the  Mail 
Steamers  running  from  Panama  to  San  Francisco,  to  touch,  as  here- 
tofore has  been  their  custom  at  the  Port  of  San  Bias  in  Mexico,  from 
which  place  the  Defendants  have  expected,  and  still  expect,  to  receive 
said  papers. 

The  Defendants  therefore  ask  of  your  honorable  Court  such  further 


233 

time  as  may  be  necessary  to  procure  said  papers  and  comply  with 
the  said  order  of  Court. 

And  the  Defendants  further  aver  that  the  said  papers  and  other 
documents  which  they  have  sent  for  in  Mexico,  and  which  they  are 
daily  expecting  to  receive,  are  absolutely  necessary  to  tnem  in  the 
above  entitled  cause  and  that  they  cannot  proceed  with  the  trial  of 
this  cause  without  said  papers  and  documents. 

And  the  Defendants  specify  among  others,  the  following  papers 
and  documents  as  absolutely  necessary  to  them  before  they  can 
proceed  with  the  trial  of  this  cause,  viz.:  (1)  The  original  Denounce- 
ment of  the  Mine  of  New  Almaden  and  the  Judicial  possession  given 
of  the  same  in  the  year  1845.  (2.)  The  confirmation  of  said  De- 
nouncement and  possession  by  the  Supreme  Government  of  Mexico 
in  the  year  1846,  and  prior  to  the  late  declaration  of  War  by  the 
United  States  against  the  Republic  of  Mexico.  (3.)  The  original 
grant  of  land  including  said  mining  possession,  made  by  the  Supreme 
government  of  Mexico  (prior  to  the  Declaration  of  War  as  aforesaid) 
to  the  owners  of  said  mine.  (4.)  The  original  documents  showing 
the  ownership  of  said  mine  and  land  in  the  parties  from  whom  the 
Defendants  derive  title  :  the  Defendants  verily  believing  that  the 
land  referred  to  in  said  documents  is  the  same  land  as  that  upon 
which  the  pretended  trespass  is  alleged  in  Plaintiffs  complaint  to  have 
been  committed,  and  that  these  documents  are  absolutely  necessary 
for  their  defence. 

The  Defendants  therefore  pray  a  continuance  of  the  above  entitled 
cause  to  the  April  term  of  this  Honorable  Court. 

State  of  California, 
County  of  Santa  Clara, 

Henry  W.  Halleck,  one  of  the  attorneys  in  the  above  entitled  suit 
states  on  oath  that  he  believes  the  facts  mentioned  in  the  fore- 
going answer  and  petition  are  true,  that  all  due  dilligence  has  been 
exercised  to  produce  in  Court  the  aforementioned  papers,  that  further 
time  is  necessary  to  Defendants  in  order  to  enable  them  to  produce 
said  papers,  and  that  Defendants  cannot  go  to  trial  in  this  cause  till 
said  papers  are  procured. 

H.  W.  HALLECK. 
Sworn  to  and  subscribed  before  me. 

JOHN  H.  WATSON, 

Judge. 
Filed  Deer.  23,  1850. 

H.  C.  MELONE, 

Clerk. 

23 


2U 

Maria  Zac  de  Bernal  Berreyesa, 

Widow  of  Jose*  Reyes  Berreyesa, 

et  al. 

j  vs. 

Isidore  de  la  Torre, 

ET  AL. 


\ 


> 


The  defts  are  notified  that  the  Plaintiffs  will  at  3  o'clock  on  thurs- 
day  23d  day  of  Jany  1851  at  the  Court  House  of  the  County  of 
Santa  Clara,  State  of  California  move  the  Court  for  the  appointment 
of  a  receiver  in  said  cause,  to  take  charge  of  the  rents  and  profits 
accruing  from  the  mining  operations,  mentioned  in  the  complainants 
complaint. 

VOORHIES  &  HESTER, 
Jany  23d  1851.  For  plffs. 

Filed  Jany  23d  1851. 

H.  C.  MELONE, 

Clerk. 


DISTRICT  COURT  OF  THE  COUNTY  OF  SANTA  CLARA. 

December  Term,  A.  D.  1850. 

State  op  California,         ) 
County  of  Santa  Clara.  \ 

To  the  Honorable  Judge   of   the   District   Court   of   said 
County  : — 

Your  complainants,  Maria  Zac.  de  Bernal  Berreyesa,  widow  of  Jose* 
Reyes  Berreyesa,  Maria  del  Carmen  Berreyesa  and  her  husband  Lo- 
renzo Pinedo,  Loreta  Berreyesa  and  her  husband  Juan  Bojorques, 
Santiago  Berreyesa,  Jose  de  los  Santos  Berreyesa,  Nemesio  Berre- 
yesa, Francisco  Berreyesa,  Fernando  Berreyesa,  Magdalena  Berreye- 
sa and  her  husband  Maximo  Fernandez,  William  Bassham,  tutor  of 
Jose  Encarnacion  Berreyesa,  children  and  heirs  of  Jose  Berreyesa, 
Richard  Roman,  James  Hepburn,  and  Charles  V.  Stuart,  residents  of 
said  county,  represent  to  your  Honor,  that  there  is  a  suit  now  pending 
in  said  Court  in  their  favor  against  Isidoro  de  la  Torre,  of  Mazatlanin 
Mexico,  Alexander  Forbes,  William  and  Eustachio  Barron,  of  Tepic 
in  Mexico,  John  Parrot,  of  San  Francisco,  James  A.  Forbes  and 
Robert  Walkinshaw,  of  said  county  of  Santa  Clara  ;  which  said  suit 
has  been  instituted  by  your  complainants  to  recover  possession  of  a 
large  and  valuable  tract  of  land  known  as  the  Rancho  de  la  Canada  de 


235 

los  Capitancillos,  alias  Rancho  of  San  Vicente ,  and  also  for  a  large 
amount  of  damages,  on  account  of  the  trespass  and  wrongs  mentioned 
in  the  complaint  therein,  and  upon  which  tract  of  land  is  situated  the 
Quicksilver  mine  known  as  the  mine  of  Nueva  Almaden,  and  which 
mine  is  an  appurtenant  of  said  land.  They  further  represent  that  the 
said  defendants  in  said  suit  have  been  and  are  engaged  in  working 
said  mine  and  taking  therefrom  large  quantities  of  valuable  mineral 
ore,  to  wit,  four  thousand  pounds  per  day,  which  they  allege  is  of  the 
value  of  two  thousand  Dollars ;  that  they  the  said  defendants  are  oth- 
erwise using  and  working  said  mine  and  appropriating  the  rents  and 
profits  derived  therefrom  to  their  own  use,  in  fraud  of  the  rights  of 
your  complainants,  who  charge  and  believe  they  are  able  to  establish 
upon  the  trial  of  the  suit  aforesaid,  that  said  defendants  are  trespassers 
upon  them,  and  that  the  Rancho  aforesaid,  together  with  the  said  mire 
thereon  situate  is  their  rightful  property  as  hereinafter  stated,  and  that 
all  the  benefit  and  advantages,  rents  and  profits  arising  therefrom  just- 
ly and  rightfully  accrue  to  them. 

They  further  represent,  that  many  of  the  defendants  are  non-resi- 
dents of  this  State,  ag  will  appear  by  reference  to  the  admissions  of  the 
defendants  in  their  pleading  and  affidavits  in  said  cause,  and  your  com- 
plainants believe  that  they  will  withdraw  from  said  State  their  propor- 
tion of  the  profits  accruing  to  them  from  the  working  of  said  mine  as 
fast  and  whenever  the  same  arises,  and  that  the  same  thing  will  be* 
done,  as  your  complainants  believe,  of  the  profits  accruing  to  the  said 
defendants  who  are  residents  of  said  State  ;  and  your  complainants 
believe  that  said  defendants  have  not  sufficient  property  or  other  means 
in  said  State  to  satisfy  the  Judgment  which  may  be  rendered  in  said 
suit ;  so  that  whatever  Judgment  which  may  be  rendered  in  said  suit 
will  be  unavailing  unless  the  profits  accruing  from  the  working  of  the 
said  mine  be  safely  kept  and  retained  in  the  hands  of  an  honest  careful 
person. 

Your  complainants  further  allege,  that  the  defendants  have  used, 
and  your  complainants  believe  they  will  continue  to  use,  all  the  means 
in  their  power  to  prevent  said  suit  from  coming  to  a  trial,  and  that  said 
suit  on  account  of  such  resistance  may  be  much  delayed  before  the 
trial  thereof.  They  further  allege  that  said  defendants,  as  they  be- 
lieve, fraudulently  setup  a  claim  to  said  land,  without,  as  they  believe, 
having  any  valid  title  thereto.  The  plaintiffs  are  the  owners  of  said 
land,  in  fee  simple,  except  the  said  Hepburn,  Roman  and  Stewart, 
who  have  a  joint  interest  with  the  other  plaintiffs  by  a  lease  from  them 
made  last  July  to  said  Hepburn,  Roman  and  Stewart  for  the  term  of 
twenty  years  from  and  after  the  said  time  of  making  said  lease.  The 
said  complainants  allege  that  the  said  Berreyesas  have  been  in  the 
peaceable  possession  of  said  land  for  at  least  nine  years  next  before 
the  said  defendants  first  occupied  the  same  and  wrongfully  obtained 


236 

possession  thereof.  The  said  plaintiff,  James  Hepburn,  states  on 
oath  the  facts  stated  in  the  above  complaint  are  in  substance  and  mat- 
ter of  fact  as  he  believes.  Your  complainants  therefore  pray  that  a 
Receiver  be  appointed  to  take  charge  of  the  accruing  profits,  and  re- 
tain them  subject  to  the  order  of  said  Court  until  said  suit  shall  be  be 
determined,  and  then  to  be  subject  to  the  order  which  the  Court  may 
make  therein,  and  that  your  Honor  grant  such  other  relief  as  may 
comport  with  justice.     Jany  23d,  1851. 

VOORHIES  &  HESTER  for  Complainants. 
JAMES  HEPBURN. 

Subscribed  and  sworn  to  before  me,  this  23d  day  of  January,  1851. 

II.  C.  MELONE,  Clerk. 

Filed,  January  23, 1851.  H.  C.  MELONE,  Clerk. 


Berreyesa,  et.  al.  ) 

against  > 

Forbes,  et.  al.       ) 

Upon  a  motion  by  Plaintiffs  to  appoint  a  Receiver  to  take  charge  of 
the  proceeds  of  the  Quicksilver  mine  of  New  Almaden. 

And  now  comes  the  parties  by  their  attorneys,  viz,  the  plaintiffs  ap- 
pearing by  their  attorney  John  B.  Weller,  and  the  defendants  by  their 
attorney,  Wm.  H.  Rumsey,  and  the  plaintiffs  produce  and  file  their 
affidavit  herein.  Whereupon  the  argument  of  counsel  being  heard,  it 
is  ordered  by  the  Court  that  John  W.  Geary  be  appointed  a  Receiver 
whose  duty  it  shall  be  to  take  charge  of  the  Quicksilver  which  may 
be  obtained  by  the  defendants  in  working  the  mine  in  the  pleadings 
mentioned,  over  and  above  what  shall  be  necessary  for  the  expenses 
incurred  in  prosecuting  the  mining  operations.  Said  Geary  shall  re- 
ceive said  quicksilver  as  fast  as  the  same  may  be  smelted  at  the  fur- 
naces of  the  defendants,  and  said  defendants  are  ordered  to  account  to 
and  turn  over  to  the  possession  of  the  said  John  W.  Geary  the  quick- 
silver aforesaid  as  often  as  called  upon  by  hirn  to  do  so,  they  taking 
the  receipt  of  the  said  Geary  for  the  amounts  so  turned  over  from 
time  to  time,  and  the  said  Geary  shall  execute  and  deliver  to  the  de- 
fendants such  receipts  when  demanded.  The  receiver  will,  as  fast  as 
the  said  mineral  is  received  by  him,  or  as  often  as  is  necessary,  trans- 
port the  same  to  the  city  of  San  Francisco  or  other  suitable  point  of 
depot,  and  sell  or  ship  the  same  as  will  be  most  conducive  to  the  inter- 
est of  these  parties,  and  the  monies  arising  from  the  sale  of  the  said 


237 

mineral  shall  be  held  subject  to  the  order  of  the  Court  upon  the  final 
adjudication  of  the  matters  in  this  suit.  Said  Receiver  before  enter- 
ing upon  the  duties  of  his  office  shall  take  and  subscribe  an  oath  before 
the  Clerk  of  this  Court  well  and  truly  to  discharge  his  duties,  and 
shall  execute  a  bond  to  be  approved  by  this  Court  or  the  Clerk  thereof 
in  vacation,  in  the  sum  of  Two  hundred  and  Fifty  Thousand  Dollars, 
conditioned  to  account  for  and  pay  over  upon  the  order  of  the  Court, 
the  sums  of  money  which  he  may  receive  in  pursuance  of  this  order. 
He  shall  produce  and  file  in  this  Court,  on  or  before  the  sixth  day  of 
each  regular  term  thereof,  a  sworn  statement  of  his  accounts,  and 
shall  show  in  such  statements  the  amount  of  money  or  the  quantity  of 
ore  remaining  in  his  hands,  and  the  Court  reserves  the  power  of  increas- 
ing the  amount  of  said  bond,  and  of  requiring  additional  security  upon 
the  same  at  discretion.  And  the  said  Receiver  shall  be  allowed  such 
compensation  as  shall  be  adjudged  reasonable  and  just  by  the  Court. 


State  of  California,         ) 
County  of  Santa  Clara.  J 

DISTRICT  COURT  OF  THE  THIRD  JUDICIAL  DISTRICT, 

in  the  state  and  county  aforesaid. 

Alexander  Forbes, 
&  als. 
ads. 
Maria  Berreyesa, 

&  others, 

James  A.  Forbes  and  Robert  Walkinshaw,  defendants  in  this  cause, 
move  that  the  order  made  by  the  Hon.  Wm.  Robert  Turner,  on  the 
24  January,  1851,  appointing  a  Receiver  for  the  purposes  in  said  order 
mentioned,  be  revoked  and  set  aside,  the  said  order  having  been  im- 
providently  made,  and  being  contrary  to  law. 

PEACHY  &  BILLINGS, 
Attorneys  for  Defendants. 

Filed,  Feb.  22, 1851.  H.  C.  MELONE,  Clerk. 


238 

DISTRICT  COURT  OF  COUNTY  OF  SANTA  CLARA, 
STATE  OF  CALIFORNIA. 

February  Term,  1851. 

Berreyesa,  et.   al.  ) 

vs.  > 

Alex.  Forbes,  et.  al.  ) 

Be  it  remembered,  that  on  the  22d  day  of  February,  1851,  the 
Court  being  in  session,  the  defendants  by  their  counsel  moved  the 
Court  to  set  aside  an  order  which  the  said  Court  had  made  herein,  at 
the  December  term  thereof,  1850,  on  the  24th  day  of  January,  1851. 
and  which  order  is  as  follows  :  ("  see  pages  27  and  28  of  this  tran- 
script, for  said  order,")  (here  the  clerk  will  set  it  out,)  which  motion 
the  Court  sustained  and  set  aside  said  order.  To  which  opinion  the 
plaintiffs  by  their  counsel  except  and  pray  that  this  their  Bill  of  Ex- 
ceptions may  be  signed,  sealed,  and  made  a  part  of  the  record  in  this 
cause,  and  which  is  accordingly  done. 

JNO.  H.  WATSON, 

Feb.  22, 1851.  Judge. 

Filed,  Feb.  22, 1851.  H.  C.  MELONE,  Clerk, 


IN  THE  THIRD  JUDICIAL  DISTRICT  COURT, 

IN  AND  FOR  THE  COUNTY  OF  SANTA  CLARA,  STATE  OF  CALIFORNIA. 

M.  Z.  Berreyesa,  et.  als.   ^ 

vs.  V 

James  A.  Forbes,  et.  als.  J 

and 
M.  Z.  Berreyesa,  et.  als. 

vs. 

YSIDORO  DE  LA  TORRE 


.  als.   ) 
,  et.  als.  ) 


Interrogatories  Propounded  by  Defendants 

In  the  above  entitled  Causes,  to  Manuel  Castanares  in  the  City  of 

Mevico. 

1. — What  is  your  name,  age  and  profession  ? 
2. — Have  you  ever  resided  in  California,  and  if  so,  at  what  time, 
and  how  long  ? 


239 

3  — Did  you  ever  hold  the  office  of  Prefect  or  Secretary  of  the 
Prefectura  of  the  first  District  of  California ;  if  so,  at  what  time  and 
how  long  ? 

4. — State  if  you  know  who  was  the  Prefect  and  who  was  the  Secre- 
tary of  the  Prefectura  of  the  first  District  of  California  on  the  twenty- 
second  day  of  September,  1842. 

5. — State,  if  you  know,  whether  your  brother,  Jose  Maria  Casta- 
nares, was  Secretary  or  acting  Secretary  of  the  said  Prefectura  in  the 
year,  1842  ? 

6. — State,  if  you  know,  whether  there  was  in  California,  in  the 
month  of  September,  1842,  any  person  other  than  your  brother  named 
Jose  Maria  Castaiiares  ? 

7. — State,  if  you  know*  whether  any  person  by  the  name  of  Jose 
Maria  Castanares  was  Secretary  or  acting  Secretary  of  said  Prefectu- 
ra in  the  month  of  September,  1842  ? 

Translation  of  the  foregoing  Interrogatories  into  the  Spanish 

Language. 

1. — Diga,  como  se  llama  el  declarante,  su  edad,  y  profesion  ? 

2. — Diga,  se  ha  sido  residente  en  Californias,  en  que  punto,  en  que 
fecha,  y  por  cuanto  tiempo. 

3. — Diga,  si  fue  Prefecto  6  Secretario  de  la  Prefectura  del  primer 
Distrito  de  Californias,  y  en  que  fecha,  y  por  cuanto  tiempo  ? 

4. — Diga,  si  sabe  quien  fiie*  Frefecto,  y  quien  fiie*  Secretario  de  la 
Prefectura,  del  primer  Distrito  de  Californias  en  el  dia  veinte  y  dos  de 
Septiembre  de  mil  ochocientos  cuarenta  y  dos  ? 

5. — Diga,  si  sabe  el  declarante,  si  el  hermano  Jose  Maria  Castana- 
res fue  Secretario  en  propriedad  o  en  interinato  de  la  precitada  Pre- 
fectura en  todo  el  aiio  mil  ochocientos  cuarenta  y  dos. 

6. — Diga,  si  sabe  que  habia  en  Californias  en  Septiembre  de  mil 
ochocientos  cuarenta  y  dos  otra  persona  que  amas  del  hermano  del  de- 
clarante se-llamase  Jose  Maria  Castanares  ? 

7. — Diga,  si  sabe  que  en  Septiembre  de  mil  ochocientos  cuarenta  y 
dos  el  Secretario  en  propriedad  o  interinato  de  la  precitada  Prefectura 
se  Uamaba  Jose  Maria  Castanares  ? 

halleck;  peachy  &  billings, 

Attorneys  for  Defendants. 
Filed,  April  8, 1851.  H.  C.  MELONE,  Clerk. 


240 
IN  THE  THIRD  JUDICIAL  DISTRICT  COURT, 

IN  AND  FOR  THE  COUNTY  OF  SANTA  CLARA,  STATE  OF  CALIFORNIA. 

M.  Z.  Berreyesa,  et.  als.  ) 

vs.  > 

James  A.  Forbes,  et.  als.  ) 

and 
M.  Z.  Berreyesa,  et.  als.   ) 
vs.  [ 

YSIDORO  DE   LA  TORRE,  et.  als.  ) 

Interrogatories  Propounded  by  Defendants, 

In  the  above  entitled  Causes,  to  Jose  Maria  Castanares,  in  the  City 
of  Mexico,  Mexico. 

1. — What  is  you  name,  age  and  profession  ? 

2. — Have  you  ever  resided  in  California  ;  and  if  so,  in  what  place 
or  places,  at  what  time,  and  how  long  ? 

3. — Did  you  ever  hold  the  effice  of  Attorney  General  of  the  Supe- 
rior Tribunal  of  California  ;  and  if  so,  at  what  time,  and  how  long  ? 

4. — State  whether  by  the  laws  of  Mexico  you  could,  while  Attor- 
ney General  of  said  Tribunal,  hold  any  other  office,  and  whether, 
while  such  Attorney  General,  you  ever  did  hold  any  other  office  in  Cal- 
ifornia, either  temporary  or  permanent. 

5. — State  whether,  while  you  were  such  Attorney  General  in  Cali- 
fornia, you  ever  was  acting  Secretary  of  the  Prefectura  of  the  first 
District  of  California. 

6. — State  whether  at  any  time  you  have  been  acting  Secretary  of 
said  Prefectura. 

7. — State  whether  as  such  acting  Secretary  of  said  Prefectura  you 
ever  recorded  any  title  of  a  grant  of  land  in  California. 

8. — State  whether  in  the  month  of  September,  A.  D.  eighteen  hun- 
dred and  forty-two,  you  recorded  in  said  Prefectura  a  title  of  a  grant 
of  land  made  by  Governor  John  B.  Alvarado  to  Sargent  Jose  Reyes 
Berreyesa. 

9. — State  whether  you  ever  wrote  on  any  such  title  of  grant  to  Jose 
Reyes  Berreyesa  a  certificate  of  such  record. 

10. — State  whether  you  ever  signed  such  certificate. 

11. — State  whether  your  recollection  on  this  subject  is  clear  and 
positive. 

12. — State,  if  you  know,  whether  there  was  any  other  person  living 
in  California,  in  the  year  eighteen  hundred  and  forty-two,  named  Jose 
Maria  Castanares. 

13. — State,  if  you  know,  whether  any  person  by  that  name  was 


241 

acting  Secretary  of  the  aforesaid  Prefectura  in  the  year  eighteen  hun- 
dred and  forty-two. 

14. — Have  you  a  brother  named  Manuel  Castanares  ? 

Translation  of  the  foregoing  Interrogatories  into  the  Spanish 

Language. 

1.  Diga  como  se  llama  el  declarante,  su  edad  y  profesion  ? 

2.  Digo  si  ha  sido  residente  en  Californias,  en  que  punto,  en  que 
fecha,  y  por  cuanto  tiempo  ? 

3.  Diga  si  fiie*  ministro  fiscal  del  tribunal  Superior  de  Justicia  de 
los  Californios,  y  esprese  la  fecha  en  que  tomo  posesion  de  ese  destino, 
y  el  dia  en  que  ceso  en  el  ? 

4.  Diga  si  es  cierto  que  por  estar  prohibido  por  la  ley  de  Mexico 
k  los  fiscales  de  los  tribunales  superiores  de  justicia  el  tener  otro  em- 
pleo  y  si  el  que  contesta  turo  otro  en  propriedad  en  interinato  6  en 
comision,  en  Californias  mientras  que  fue  fiscal  ? 

5.  Diga  si  el  que  contesta  turo  6  no  el  de  secretario  interino  de 
la  Prefectura  del  primer  Distrito  de  Californios  en  el  tiempo  que  fue 
fiscal  del  Snperior  Tribunal  en  Californios  ? 

6.  Diga  si  ha  sido  Secretario  interino  de,  dicha  Prefeotura  en 
algun  tiempo  ? 

7.  Diga  si,  como  tal  secretario  de  dicha  Prefectura  tomo  razon  de 
algun  titulo  de  concesion  de  tiersa  en  Californias  ? 

8.  Diga  si  tomo  razon  el  que  contesta  en  Septiembre  de  mil  ocho- 
cientos  cuarenta  y  dos  en  la  precitada  Prefectura  de  algun  titulo  de 
concesion  de  tierra  dado  al  Sargento  Jose  Reyes  Berreyesa  ? 

9.  Diga  si  estendio  en  tal  titulo  de  concesion  a  Jose  Reyes  Ber- 
reyesa, un  certificado  de  toma  de  razon  ? 

10.  Diga  si  ha  firmado  tal  certificado  ? 

11.  Diga  si  hace  recuerdo  fijo  y  positivo  de  ese  asunto. 

12.  Diga  si  habia  en  Californias  en  el  aiio  de  mil  ochocientos  cua- 
renta y  dos  otra  persona  que  amas  del  declarante  se  llamase  Jose  Ma- 
ria Castanares  ? 

13.  Diga,  si  sabe  que  en  todo  el  ano  mil  ochocientos  cuarenta  y 
dos  el  secretario  interino  de  la  precitada  Prefectura  se  llamaba  Jose 
Maria  Castanares  ? 

14.  Diga,  si  tiene  el  que  contesta  un  hermano  que  se  llama  Ma- 
nuel Castanares  ? 

HALLECK,  PEACHY  &  BILLINGS, 

Attorneys  for  Defts. 

Filed,  April  8th,  1851  H.  C.  Melone, 

Clerk. 


242 

IN  THIRD  JUDICIAL  DISTRICT  COURT  IN  AND  FOR  THE 
COUNTY  OF  SANTA  CLARA,  STATE  OF  CALIFORNIA. 

M.  Z.  Berreyesa  et  al.  } 

vs.  > 

Jas.  A.  Forbes  et  al.  ) 

& 

M.  Z.  Berreyesa  et  aL  1 

vs.  > 

YSIDORO  DE  LA  TORRE  et  al.   ) 

Messrs.  Weller  &  Jones,  Atty'sfor  Pltfs. 

Gentlemen  : — Take  notice  that  Interrogatories  have  this  day  been 
filed  to  be  propounded  to  Jose  Maria  Castanares  and  Manuel  Castana- 
res  of  the  City  of  Mexico,  Mexico,  their  answers  to  be  used  in  the 
above  entitled  causes. 

San  Jose,  April  8th,  1851. 

HALLECK,  PEACHY  &  BILLINGS. 

I  acknowledge  the  service  of  the  within  notice,  this  9th  day  of 
April,  1851. 

Wm.  CLAUDE  JONES, 

Att'y  for  Berreyesa  et  al. 

Filed,  April  9, 1851.  H.  C.  Melons, 

.     Clerk. 


DISTRICT  COURT,  THIRD  JUDICIAL  DISTRICT. 

State  of  California,      ) 
County  of  Santa  Clara.  ) 


Maria  Z.  B.  de  Berreyesa  ^i 
&  others 
vs. 
James  A.  Forbes 
Robert  Walkinshaw.     J 


. 


It  is  agreed  by  the  parties  that  the  interrogatories  and  cross  interro- 
gatories filed  in  the  above  case,  to  be  propounded  to  Jose  Maria  Cas- 
taneras  and  Manuel  Castaneras,  shall  be  sent  to  the  American  Consul, 
at  Mexico,  and  the  testimony  shall  be  taken  and  returned  by  him  the 


243 

same  as  by  a  Commissioner  of  Deeds  duly  appointed ;  and  the  parties 
waive  all  objection  so  the  depositions  or  testimony  arising  from  the 
fact  that  they  are  taken  by  the  Consul,  instead  of  a  Commissioner  of 
Deeds  or  other  officer  named  in  the  Statute. 

Should  the  Consul  be  absent  from  Mexico  or  unable  to  take  the  tes- 
timony, the  above  agreement  applies  to  the  acting  Consul. 
April  28,  1851. 

HALLECK,  PEACHY  &  BILLINGS, 

Atty's  for  Dfts. 
JONES  &  WALLACE, 

of  Counsel  for  Pltfs. 

Filed,  April  28, 1851.  H.  C.  Melone, 

Clerk. 


DISTRICT  COURT,  THIRD  JUDICIAL  DISTRICT. 


State  of  California, 
County  of  Santa  Clara. 


ss. 


Maria  Z.  B.  de  Berreyesa^ 

&  others 

vs.  > 

YSLDORO  DE  LA  TORRE 

&  others.  J 

It  is  agreed  by  the  parties  that  the  interrogatories  and  cross  inter- 
rogatories, filed  in  the  above  case  to  be  propounded  to  Jose  Maria 
Castaneras  and  Manuel  Castaneras,  shall  be  sent  to  the  American 
Consul  at  Mexico,  and  the  testimony  shall  be  taken  and  returned  by 
him  the  same  as  by  a  Commissioner  of  Deeds  duly  appointed  ;  and  the 
parties  waive  all  objection  to  the  depositions  or  testimony  arising  from 
the  Tact  that  they  are  taken  by  the  Consul,  instead  of  a  Commissioner 
of  Deeds  or  other  officer  named  in  the  Statute. 

Should  the  Consul  be  absent  from  Mexico  or  unable  to  take  the  tes- 
timony, the  above  agreement  applies  to  the  acting  Consul. 
April  28,  1851. 

HALLECK,  PEACHY  &  BILLINGS, 

Atty's  for  Defts. 
JONES  &  WALLACE, 

of  Counsel  for  Pltfs. 

Filed,  April  28, 1851.  H.  C.  Melone, 

F  Clerk. 


244 
DISTRICT  COURT,  THIRD  JUDICIAL  DISTRICT. 

State  of  California, 


County  of  Santa  Clara.   ' 

Maria  Z.  B.  de  Berreyesa^i 

&  others 

vs. 

YSID0R0  DE  LA  TORRE 

&  others.  J 

And  now  on  this  fourth  Monday  of  April,  A.  D.  one  thousand  eight 
hundred  and  fifty-one,  in  obedience  to  the  Summons  by  publication 
made  by  order  of  this  Court,  on  the         day  of  October  last, 


parties  defendant  in  the  above  entitled  cause  do  here  by  their  Attor- 
neys enter  their  appearance  in  said  cause  :  and  the  said  Defendants 
and  also  the  Defendants  James  A.  Forbes  and  Robert  Walkinshaw  do 
say,  that  the  Plaintiffs  in  this  cause  are,  and  were  at  the  time  of  the 
institution  thereof  citizens  of  the  State  of  California,  and  that  the 
Defendants  Ysidoro  de  la  Torre,  a  resident  of  Tepic  in  the  republic 
of  Mexico,  is  an  alien  and  a  subject  of  the  Kingdom  of  Spain,  that 
Alexander  Forbes,  another  defendant,  is  an  alien  and  subject  of  the 
Kingdom  of  Great  Britain,  that  Eustachio  Barron,  James  A.  Forbes 
and  Robert  Walkinshaw  are  also  aliens  and  subjects  of  the  Kingdom 
of  Great  Britain,  and  that  said  Defendants  were  aliens  at  the  time  of  the 
institution  of  this  suit,  and  that  Defendant  John  Parrot  is,  and  was  at  the 
institution  of  this  suit  a  citizen  of  the  State  of  Virginia,  that  William  Bar- 
ron of  Tepic  is  unknown  to  the  said  Defendants,  that  they  do  not  be- 
lieve that  such  a  man  exists,  and  that  there  is  no  person  of  the  name 
William  Barron  who  is  in  any  way  interested  in  the  land  in  contro- 
versy. Therefore  the  above  named  Ysidoro  de  la  Torre,  Alexander 
Forbes,  Eustachio  Barron,  James  A.  Forbes  &  Robert  Walkinshaw, 
and  John  Parrot,  averring  that  the  matter  in  dispute  in  this  cause  ex- 
ceeds the  value  of  five  hundred  Dollars,  exclusive  of  costs,  pray  for 
the  removal  of  this  cause  for  trial,  into  the  next  District  Court  of  the 
United  States  to  be  held  in  this  District,  and  that  this  cause  may  pro- 
ceed no  further  in  this  Court,  and  Defendants  offer  good  and  sufficient 
security  for  their  entering  in  said  District  Court  on  the  first  day  of  its 
next  Session  in  this  District,  copies  of  the  process  against  them  in  this 
cause,  and  also  for  their  appearing  in  said  Court  on  that  day. 

HALLECK,  PEACHY  &  BILLINGS, 

Atty's  for  Defendants. 


245 

DISTRICT  COURT,  THIRD  JUDICIAL  DISTRICT. 

State  of  California,      ) 
County  of  Santa  Clara.  J 

On  this,  the  twenty-eighth  day  of  April,  A.  D.  1851,  in  open 
Court  personally  appeared  Henry  W.  Halleck,  one  of  the  Attorney's 
subscribing  the  above  petition,  and  made  solemn  oath  that  the  facts 
set  forth  therein  are  true.     Before  me 

H.  C.  MELONE, 

Clerk. 
Presented  and  filed  in  open  Court.  H.  C.  Melone, 

Clerk. 


DISTRICT  COURT,  THIRD  JUDICIAL  DISTRICT. 

State  of  California,      \ 
County  of  Santa  Clara.  \ 

Maria  Z.  de  Berreyesa' 

&  others 

vs. 

James  A.  Forbes  & 

Robert  Walkinshaw.  J 

On  this,  the  twenty-eighth  day  of  April,  the  year  eighteen  hundred 
fifty-one,  the  defendants  by  their  Attorneys  appear  in  open  Court  and 
say,  that  the  plaintiffs  in  the  cause  are,  and  were  at  the  time  of  the 
institution  thereof  citizens  of  the  State  of  California,  and  that  they, 
the  Defendants  James  A.  Forbes  and  Robert  Walkinshaw  are  now, 
and  were  at  the  time  of  the  institution  of  said  suit,  aliens  and  subjects 
of  the  Kingdom  of  Great  Britain. 

Therefore  the  said  Defendants  James  A.  Forbes  and  Robert  Walk- 
inshaw, averring  that  the  matter  in  dispute  in  this  cause  exceeds  the 
value  of  five  hundred  Dollars  exclusive  of  costs,  pray  for  the  removal 
of  this  cause  for  trial  into  the  next  District  Court  of  the  United 
States  to  be  held  in  this  District,  and  that  this  cause  may  proceed  no 
further  in  this  Court.  And  this  they  pray  pursuant  to  the  provisions 
of  the  Statute  of  the  United  States,  entitled  "An  act  to  provide  for 
extending  the  laws  and  the  judicial  system  of  the  United  States  to  the 
State  of  California,"  approved  September  28,  1850  ;  the  said  suit  at 
which  time  was  pending  in  this  Court. 
By  their  Atty's 

HALLECK,  PEACHY  &  BILLINGS. 


246 

DISTRICT  COURT,  THIRD  JUDICIAL  DISTRICT. 

State  op  California, 
County  of  Santa  Clara. 

On  this,  the  twenty-eighth  day  of  April,  A.  D.  1851,  in  open 
Court  personally  appeared  Henry  W.  Halleck,  one  of  the  Attorneys 
subscribing  the  above  petition,  and  made  solemn  oath  that  the  facts 
set  forth  therein  are  true.     Before  me 

H.  C.  MELONE, 

Clerk. 

Presented  and  filed  in  open  Court,  H.  C.  Melone, 

Clerk. 


CROSS  INTERROGATORIES  BY  COMPLAINANTS. 

M.  Z.  Berreyesa  et  als  ) 

vs.  > 

James  A.  Forbes  et  als  ) 

AND 

M.  Z.  Berreyesa  et  als     ) 
vs.  > 

YSLDORO  DE  LA  TORRE  et  als    ) 

The  Complainants  reserving  to  themselves  the  benefit  of  all  legal 
objections  to  each  and  every  of  the  interrogatories  in  chief  propound- 
ed by  the  Defendants  in  the  above  entitled  causes  to  Manuel  Castane- 
ros  of  the  City  of  Mexico,  and  more  particularly  reserviug  the  benefit 
of  all  legal  objections  to  the  interrogatories  in  chief  numbered  as 
"  4th,"  «  8th,"  "  9th,"  and  "10th,"  propound  to  the  said  Manuel 
Castanaro3  the  following  cross  interrogatories  : 

1st.  Are  you  related  to  any  of  the  parties  claiming  any  part  of 
the  mine  of  Nueva  Almaden,  or  interested  in  the  same  under  the 
claim  of  the  Defendants,  and  if  so  related,  in  what  degree  ? 

2nd.  Do  you  claim  any  interest  in  said  mine,  or  have  you  ever 
claimed  any  interest  in  the  same,  and  have  you  ever  sold  any  interest 
in  said  mine  to  the  Defendants  or  to  either  of  them  ? 

3d.  Since  what  time  has  Jose  R.  Berreyesa  been  in  possession  of 
the  Rancho  of  San  Vicente,  granted  to  him  by  Governor  Juan  B. 
Alvarado,  in  the  year  1842  :  Was  he  (Berreyesa)  not  in  possession 
of  said  Rancho  immediately  after  said  grant  was  made  ? 

4th.  Was  not  Jose  R.  Berreyesa  publicly  known  as  the  owner  of 
said  Rancho  ? 


247 

M.  Z.  Berreyesa,    ) 

vs.         > 

Diego  A.  Forbes  et  als.  ) 

Y 

M.  Z.  Berreyesa  et  als  1 
vs.  > 

YSIDORO  DE  LA  TORRE  ET  ALS.  J 

Los  Actores  reservando  el  derecho  de  toda  objeccion  legal  que  haya 
en  los  interrogaciones  que  se  proponen  por  los  Demandados  (en  las 
causas  arriba)  al  Senor  Don  Manuel  Castenara  y  mas  particular- 
mente  reservando  el  derecho  de  toda  objeccion  legal  que  haya  en  las 
interrogaciones  como  *  4°"  "  8°" '«  9°"  y  "  10°"  propuestas  al  dicho 
Senor  Don  Mannel  Castanaro  preguntan  las  contra  interrogaciones 
siguientes : 

1°  i  Es  Vmd  pariente  de  alguno  de  los  partes  que  reclaman 
parte  de  la  mina  de  Nueva  Alraaden  6  de  persona  cualquiera  inter- 
esada  en  la  misma  mina  bajo  el  reclamo  de  los  Demandados  ?  y  si  lo 
es  diga  vmd  en  que  grado. 

2°  i  Reclama  Vmd  interes  alguno  en  la  dicha  mina,  6  tuvo  Vmd 
en  algun  tiempo  reclamo  alguno  en  la  dicha  mina,  y  havendido  Vmd. 
en  algun  tiempo  algun  interes  en  la  dicha  mina  a  los  Demandados  6  & 
cualquier  de  ellos  ? 

3°  i  Desde  cuando  tra  tenido  el  Senor  Don  Jose  R.  Berreyesa  la 
posesion  del  Rancho  de  San  Vicente,  el  cual  le  concedio  por  el  Gober- 
nador  Juan  B.  Alvarado  en  el  ano  1842  tenia  Berreyesa  la  posesion 
del  dicho  Rancho  luego  despues  de  hecha  la  dicha  concesion  ? 

4°  i  No  estaba  el  Senor  Don  Jose  R.  Berreyesa  reconocido  por 
todos  y  publicamento  como  dueno  del  dicho  Rancho  ? 

Filed  April  23d,  1851.  H.  C.  MELONE, 

Clerk. 


M.  Z.  Berreyesa  et  als. 

vs. 
James  A.  Forbes  et  als. 

and 
M.  Z.  Berreyesa  et  als. 

vs. 
Ysodoro  De  la  Torre  et  als. 


The  Complainants  reserving  to  themselves  the  benefit  of  all  legal 
objections  to  the  interrogatories  in  chief  propounded  by  the  Defend- 


248 

ants  in  the  above  named  causes  to  Jose  Maria  Castenaros  of  the  City 
of  Mexico  and  more  particularly  reserving  the  benefit  of  all  legal  ob- 
jections -to  the  interrogatories  in  chief  numbered  as  "  4th,"  "  8th," 
"  9th,"  and  "  10th,"  propounded  to  the  said  Jose  Maria  Castanaros, 
the  following  eross  interrogatories. 

1st.  Are  you  related  to  any  of  the  Parties  claiming  any  part  of 
the  Mine  of  Nueva  Almaden  or  interested  in  the  same  under  the 
claim  of  the  Defendants,  and  if  so  related  in  what  degree  ? 

2d.  Do  you  claim  any  interest  in  said  mine  or  have  you  ever 
claimed  any  interest  in  the  same,  and  have  you  ever  sold  any  interest 
in  said  mine  to  the  Defendants  or  to  either  of  them  ? 

3d.  Since  what  time  has  Jose  R.  Berreyesa  been  in  possession  of 
the  Rancho  of  San  Vicente  granted  to  him  by  Governor  Juan  B. 
Alvarado  in  the  year  1842  :  Was  he  Berreyesa  not  in  possession  of 
said  Rancho  at  the  time  of  said  grant,  or  did  he  not  go  into  the  pos- 
session of  said  Rancho  immediately  after  S'dd  grant  was  made  ? 

4th.  Was  not  Jose  R.  Berreyesa  publicly  known  as  the  owner  of 
said  Rancho  ? 


TRANSLATION    OF    THE    FOREGOING  CROSS    INTERROGATORIES    BY    COM- 
PLAINANTS. 

M.  Z.  Berreyesa     } 

vs.  > 

Diego  A,  Forbes  et  als.   ) 

Y 

M.  Z.  Berreyesa  et  als      ) 

vs.  \ 

Isidoro  De  la  Torre  et  als  ) 

Los  actores,  reservando  el  derecho  de  todo  objeccion  legal  que  haya 
en  las  interrogaciones  que  se  proponen  par  las  Demandados  (en  las 
causas  arriba)  al  Senor  Don  Jose  Maria  Castenara  y  mas  particular- 
mente  reservando  el  derecho  de  toda  objeccion  legal  que  haya  en  las 
interrogaciones  numerados  como  "  4°"  "  8°"  "  9°"  y  "  10°"  propues- 
tas  al  dicho  Senor  Don  Jose  Maria  Castenara,  preguntan  las  contra, 
interrogaciones  siguentas. 

1°  i  Es  vmd  pariente  de  alguno  de  los  partes  que  reclaman  parte 
de  la  mina  de  Nueva  Almaden  6  de  persona  cualquiera  interesada  en 
la  misma  mina  bajo  el  reclamo  de  las  Demandados  1  y  si  lo  es  diga 
vmd  en  que  grado. 

2°  i  Reclama  Vmd.  interes  alguno  en  la  dicha  mina  6  tuvo  vmd. 
en  algun  tiempo  reclamo  alguno  en  la  dicha  mina  ;  y  ha  vendido  vmd 
en  algun  tiempo  algun  intere3  en  la  dicha  mina  a  los  Demandados 
6  a  cualquier  de  ellas  ? 


249 

3°  j  Desde  cuando  ha  tenido  el  Senor  Don  Jose  R.  Berreyesa  la 
possession  del  Rancho  de  San  Vicente,  el  cual  le  concedio  por  el 
Gobernador  Juan  B.  Alvarado  en  el  ano  1842,  tenia  Berreyesa  la 
posesion  del  dicho  Rancho  al  tiempo  mismo  de  la  dicha  concesion,  6* 
tomo  el  la  posecison  del  dicho  Rancho  luego  despues  de  hecha  la  dicha 
concesion  ? 

4°  i  No  Estaba  el  Senor  Don  Jose  R.  Berreyesa  reconocido  por 
todos  y  publicamente  como  dueno  del  dicho  Rancho  ? 

Filed  by  consent  of  the  parties  April  28th  1851. 

H.  C.  MELONE, 

Clerk. 


Know  all  men  by  these  presents,  That  we,  Isidoro  de  la  Torre, 
Alexander  Forbes,  Eustachio  Barron,  James  A.  Forbes,  Robert  Walk- 
inshaw  and  John  Parrott,  principals  and  Henry  W.  Halleck,  Fred- 
erick Billings,  William  E.  Barron,  sureties  are  held  and  firmly  bound 
jointly  and  severally  unto  Maria  Z.  de  Bernal  Berreyesa,  widow  of 
Jose  Reyes  Berreyesa,  Maria  del  Carmen  Berreyesa  and  her  husband 
Lorenzo  Penada,  Loreto  Berreyesa  and  her  husband,  Juan  Bojorques, 
Santiago  Berreyesa,  Jose  de  los  Santos  Berreyesa,  Nemecio  Berre- 
yesa, Francisco  Berreyesa,  Fernandez  Berreyesa,  Magdalena  Berre- 
yesa and  her  husband  Marcio  Fernandez  William  Bassham  Tutor  of 
Jose  Encarnacion  Berreyesa,  Richard  Roman,  Charles  V.  Stuart,  and 
James  Hepburn  in  the  sum  of  One  Million  Dollars  to  the  payment 
whereof  well  and  truly  to  be  made  we  bind  ourselves  our  and  each  of 
our  executors  administrators  firmly  by  these  presents  jointly  and  sev- 
erally. 

Witness  our  hands  and  seals  this  twenty-eighth  day  of  April  A.  D. 
eighteen  hundred  fifty-one. 

Whereas  on  the  fifth  day  of  October  A.  D.  One  thousand  eight 
hundred  and  fifty  a  suit  was  instituted  in  the  District  Court  of  the 
Third  Judicial  District  of  the  State  of  California  for  the  County  of 
Santa  Clara  by  said  Maria  Z.  de  Bernal  Berreyesa  and  the  others 
above  named  as  obligees  against  the  above  bounden  principals  for  the 
recovery  of  certain  lands  known  as  the  Rancho  de  la  Canada  de  los 
Capitancillos  situate  in  said  County,  and  whereas  the  above  bounden 
principals  have  filed  their  petition  in  said  District  Court  for  the  County 
of  Santa  Clara  praying  for  the  removal  of  said  cause  into  the  next 
District  Court  of  the  United  States  to  be  held  in  the  District  where 
the  said  suit  is  pending. 

Now  therefore  if  the  above  bounden  principals  shall  enter  copiesof 
the  process  against  them  in  this  cause,  in  the  United  States  District 
24 


250 

Court  next  to  be  holden  in  the  District  where  the  said  cause  is  now 
pending,  and  shall  also  enter  their  appearance  in  said  United  States 
District  Court  in  said  cause  at  its  next  term,  then  these  presents  shall 
be  null  and  void,  otherwise  in  full  force  and  effect. 

Executed  the  day  and  vear  aforesaid. 
I.  DE  LA  TORRE,  by  his  Atty  in  fact  WM.  E.  BARRON,  [seal 
ALEX.  FORBES,  by  his  Atty  in  fact  WM.  E.  BARRON,  [seal 
EUSTACE  BARRON,  by  his  Atty  in  fact  WM.  E.  BARRON,  [seal 

JAS.  ALEX.  FORBES,     [seal 

ROjBERT  WALKINSHAW,     [seal 

WM.  E.  BARRON,     [seal 

JOHN  PARROTT  by  his  Atty  Jn  fact  H.  W.  HALLECK,     [seal 

\         H.  W.  HALLECK,     [seal 
FREDERICK  BILLINGS,     [seal 
Witness  to  all  signatures  on  this  page. 

H.  C.  MELONE, 

Clerk. 
Presented  and  filed  in  open  Court  April  28th,  1851. 

H.  C.  MELONE, 

Clerk. 


IN  THE  THIRD  JUDICIAL  DISTRICT  COURT  IN  AND  FOR 

THE   COUNTY   OF   SANTA  CLARA,   STATE   OF 

CALIFORNIA. 

M.  Z.  Berreyesa  et  als.      ) 

vs.  > 

Ysidoro  de  la  Torre  at  als.   ) 

It  is  hereby  agreed  by  and  between  the  undersigned  that  the  peti- 
tion of  the  Defendants  in  the  above  entitled  cause  for  removal  into 
the  District  Court  of  the  United  States  for  the  Northern  District  of 
California,  presented  and  filed  in  this  Court  on  the  28tb  day  of  April 
1851,  be  granted  and  that  the  District  Judge  of  the  said  Third 
Judicial  District  order  the  removal  of  the  said  cause  in  accordance 
with  the  prayer  of  the  said  petition. 

And  it  is  further  agreed  by  and  between  the  undersigned  that  the 
following  order  of  Court  be  entered  up  in  this  case,  viz. 

The  petition  of  Ysidoro  de  la  Torre,  Alexander  Forbes,  Eustachio 
Barron,  Jas.  A.  Forbes,  Robert  Walkinshaw,  and  John  Parrott,  De- 
fendts.  in  the  above  entitled  cause  having  been  presented  to  and  filed 
in  this  Court  on  the  28th  day  of  April,  A.  D.  1851,  simultaneously 
with  their  appearance  by  the  entry  thereof  on  the  calender  of  this 
Court  praying  for  the  removal   of  the  above  entitled  cause  from  this 


251 

Court  into  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States  for  the  Northern 
District  of  California  (sitting  as  a  Circuit  Court)  in  conformity  with 
the  act  of  Congress  of  the  United  States  made  and  provided,  and  the 
said  defendants  having  having  filed  a  bond  with  good  and  sufficient 
security  which  has  been  accepted  by  this  Court,  and  it  appearing  that 
the  matter  in  dispute  exceeds  the^  sum  of  five  hundred  Dollars  ex- 
clusive of  costs,  and  that  said  Defendants  have  complied  in  all  res- 
pects with  said  act  of  Congress ;  It  is  ordered  that  the  prayer  of 
said  petition  be  granted  and  that  the  said  Defendants  do  appear  in 
the  said  District  Court  of  the  U.  S.  for  the  Northern  District  of  Cali- 
fornia (sitting  as  a  Circuit  Court)  to  be  held  in  th?  town  of  San  Jose 
&  County  of  Santa  Clara  in  this  State  on  the  15th  day  of  April  next 
on  the  first  day  of  said  term  &  that  they  do  file  in  said  Court  copies 
of  the  process  and  complaint  in  this  case  together  with  copies  of  all 
other  papers  of  file  in  this  Court  in  the  above  entitled  cause. 

WILLIAM  T.  WALLACE, 
Feby  5,  1852.  Atto  for  Plaintiffs. 

HALLECK,  PEACHY  &  BILLINGS, 

Atty's  for  Defendts. 


Filed  Feby  5,  1852. 


H.  C.  MELONE, 

Clerk. 


State  of  California,      ) 
County  of  Santa  Clara.    \ 


ss. 


I  John  B.  Hewson  County  Clerk  of  Santa  Clara  County  and  Ex- 
officio  Clerk  of  the  District  Court  of  the  3d  Judicial  District  of  the 
State  of  California,  in  and  for  said  County,  do  hereby  certify,  that 
the  foregoing  pages,  numbered  from  one,  to  forty-nine  inclusive  con- 
tain a  full,  true,  and  complete  Transcript,  of  all  the  papers  filed,  and 
the  proceedings  had  thereon,  in  the  aforesaid  District  Court,  in  the 
suits  of  Maria  Z.  Bernal  de  Berreyesa  et  als,  vs.  James  Alexander 
Forbes  &  Robert  Walkinshaw,  and  Maria  Z.  Bernal  de  Berreyesa  et 
als,  vs.  Isidoro  de  la  Torre  et  als,  as  taken  from  the  files  and  Records 
in  said  Court. 

In  Testimony  whereof,  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand,  and  affixed 
the  Seal  of  Said  Court  this  15th  day  of  August  A.  D.  1857. 

JOHN  B.  HEWSON, 

Clerk. 

SEAL 


Filed  Aug.  21, 1857. 

W.  H.  CHEVERS, 

Dep.  Clerk. 


252 
DEPOSITION  OF  GEO.  M.  YOELL. 


United  States  District  Court, 
Northern  District  of  Calieoknia. 

The  United  States 

vs. 
Andres  Castillero.J 

San  Francisco,  August  18th,  1857. 
On  this  day,  before  J.  Edgar  Grymes,  a  Special  Commissioner  and 
Referee,  appointed  by  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States  for  the 
Northern  District  of  California,  duly  authorized  to  administer  oaths, 
&c,  &c,  came  George  M.  Yoell,  a  witness  produced  on  behalf  of  the 
United  States,  in  Case  No.  420,  being  an  appeal  from  the  Board  of 
Commissioners  to  ascertain  and  settle  the  private  land  claims  in  the 
State  of  California,  in  Case  No.  366  on  the  dockat  of  the  said  Board 
of  Commissioners,  and  was  duly  sworn  and  testified  as  follows  : 

Present — U.  S.  District  Attorney  represented  by  Edmund  Ran- 
dolph, Esq.,  and  Frederick  Billings,  Esq.,  for  claimants. 

Questions  by  Edmund  Randolph,  Esq. 

1st  Question. — What  is  your  name,  age,  occupation,  and  place  of 
residence  ? 

1st  Answer. — My  name  is  George  M.  Yoell ;  34  years  old  ;  I  am 
Deputy  Recorder  of  Santa  Clara  County,  and  I  reside  In  San  Jose, 
Santa  Clara  County. 

2d  Question. — Have  you  been  subpoened  in  this  case  ? 

2d  Answer. — I  have,  and  have  been  ordered  to  bring  certain  docu- 
ments with  me. 

3c?  Question. — Please  produce  that  document  ? 

3c?  Answer. — The  witness  here  produced  a  document. 

4th  Question. — What  document  is  that  ? 

(Question  objected  to  by  claimant's  attorney,  as  being  incompetent 
and  immaterial.) 

4th  Answer. — This  is  a  document  filed  among  the  records  of  Santa 
Clara  County,  and  also  of  record  in  the  same  office. 

(Answer  objected  to — same  grounds  as  the  question.) 


253 

5th  Question. — Can  this  document  be  filed  in  this  case  ? 

5th  Answer. — I  cannot  part  with  it,  as  I  am  in  duty  bound  to  return 
it  to  the  records  of  Santa  Clara  County. 

6th  Question. — Look  at  the  document  marked  "  Exhibit  R.,  No. 
1,"  attached  to  your  deposition,  and  please  state  if  it  is  a  copy  of  the 
original  produced  by  you,  and  if  it  was  made  by  you. 

6th  Answer. — This  is  a  certified  traced  copy  made  by  myself,  as 
the  County  Recorder's  Deputy  of  Santa  Clara  County. 

(The  attorney  for  the  claimant  objects  to  the  introduction  of  "  Ex- 
hibit R.  No.  1,"  first,  because  the  original  has  not  been  duly  proved  ; 
2d,  because  it  is  secondary  evidence  ;  3d,  because  the  evidence  is  im- 
material and  irrelevant.) 

1th  Qvestion. — Please  look  at  the  words  in  red  ink,  on  the  first  page 
of  Exhibit  R.,  No.  1 — state  what  those  words  are  and  explain  what 
they  mean. 

7th  Answer. — The  words  are,  "  The  above  is  written  in  pencil.  S. 
A.  Clark,  Recorder,  by  Geo.  M.  Yoell,  Deputy ; "  that  alludes  to  the 
filing  which  is  traced  above,  on  the  original  document,  purporting  to 
be  signed  by  J.  T.  Richardson,  the  former  Recorder  of  Santa  Clara 
County. 

8^  Question. — Look  at  the  9th  page  of  the  same  exhibit — state 
what  the  words  are  written  at  the  foot  of  the  page,  in  red  ink,  by  whom 
they  were  written,  and  what  they  mean. 

8th  Answer. — The  words  are  "  '  Blots,  &c.'  S.  A.  Clark,  Record- 
er, by  Geo.  M.  Yoell,  Deputy ;"  it  was  made  to  give  as  correct  a  copy 
of  the  original  as  possible,  by  myself,  and  to  show  that  the  blots  were 
on  the  original  at  the  time  it  was  made  by  me. 

9th  Question. — Look  on  the  last  page  of  the  paper  which  you  first 
produced,  and  which  you  say  is  on  file  in  the  County  Recorder's  office, 
in  Santa  Clara  county — read  what  words  are  written  on  said  page,  and 
say  whose  hand  writing  they  are  in. 

9th  Answer. — They  words  are,  "  Filed  (for)  February  25th,  A.  D. 
1853,  at  11  o'clock  A.  M.  J.  M.  Murphy,  Recorder,  by  S.  0. 
Houghton,  Deputy."  That  is  in  the  handwriting  of  S.  0.  Houghton, 
a  former  Deputy  Recorder  of  Santa  Clara  County,  whose  hand  writing 
I  am  familiar  with. 

10th  Question. — Look  at  the  first  page  of  the  same  document  pro- 
duced by  you,  and  please  read  the  first  words  written  thereon,  and 
state  with  what  it  is  written,  whether  with  ink  or  pencil. 

lth  An*.— The  words  are,  "  Filed  3  o'clk  P.  M.,  18  Jany,  1851.  J. 
T.  Richardson,  Recorder  S.  C.  C."  It  is  written  with  a  lead  pencil, 
in  the  hand  writing  of  J.  T.  Richardson,  Recorder  of  Santa  Clara  Co. 

11th  Ques. — Please  take  the  original    document  which  you  have 


254 

stated  to  be  on  file  among  the  records  in  the  office  of  the  County  Re- 
corder of  the  county  of  Santa  Clara,  and  examine  carefully  what  water 
marks,  or  manufacturer's  marks  are  to  be  found  upon  it  upon  each 
page  and  each  sheet  thereof,  so  as  to  make  it  appear  in  your  answer 
what  marks  of  said  nature  exist  upon  each  sheet  and  page  separately, 
of  which  the  said  original  document  is  composed. 

(Question  objected  to  by  claimant's  attorney,  on  the  grounds  that 
the  evidence  sought  to  be  obtained  is  secondary,  incompetent,  irrele- 
vant, and  immaterial.) 

11th  Ans. — I  find  on  the  first  page  the  following  : 

G     B 
F 
E  M  Vedova 
and  also  another  figure  would  I  could  not  make  out. 
On  the  second  page,     Ps 

On  the  third  page,  GIORMAGNANIEE. 
On  the  fourth  page  there  is  a  water  mark  with  the  "  scale  of  justice  " 
on  in  the  center. 

On  the  fifth  there  is  "  Fleur  de  Lis  "  as  water  mark. 
On  the  sixth  page  is     Ps- 
On  the  seventh  the  same  as  on  the  third. 
On  the  eighth  the  same  as  on  the  sixth. 
On  the  ninth  the  same  as  on  the  third  and  seventh. 
On  the  last  page  is    FABI    NI 

12. 

(Answer  objected  to  by  claimant's  attorney  as  follows ;  each  and  all 
the  answer  given  by  the  witness  to  question  eleven  are  objected  to  for 
reasons  stated  in  objection  to  the  question,  and  also  for  the  reason  that 
the  answers  are  vague  and  uncertain,  and  give  no  definite  intelligible 
description  of  the  marks  in  question.) 

Ques.  12th. — Are  the  water  marks,  or  manufacturer's  marks,  to 
which  you  have  just  testified,  marked  on  the  traced  copy  marked 
"  Exhibit  R.,  No.  1  ?  " 

Ans.  \2th. — They  are  not ;  it  would  be  very  difficult  to  trace  them. 

Ques.  13th. — Will  you  please  to  state  in  what  manner  this  original 
document  is  put  together,  and  of  how  many  sheets  it  is  composed  ? 

Ans.  13th. — This  original  document  is  composed  of  five  sheets  of 
paper — four  sheets  inside  of  one  sheet — each  sheet  of  two  leaves — the 
outside  leaf  appearing  to  have  formed  one  sheet,  but  I  cannot  say  for 
certain,  as  they  are  torn  or  very  much  worn.     The  first  page  contain 


255 

the  words,  in  pencil  mark,  "  Filed  3  o'clk  P.  M.  18  Jany,  1851.  J 
T.  Richardson,  Recorder  S.  C.  C. ;"  and  in  ink,  the  following :  "  Po- 
sesion  de  la  Mina  de  Santa  Clara,  Ano  de  1845." 

On  the  last  page  are  the  words,  in  ink  : 

"  Filed  (for)  February  25th,  A.  D.  1853,  at  11  o'clock  A.  M.  J. 
M.  Murphy,  Recorder,  by  S.  0.  Houghton,  Deputy ;  "  and  those  two 
leaves  compose  the  outside  of  said  document.  The  first  sheet  inside 
purports  to  be  a  petition,  signed  by  Jose'  Castro,  as  representative  of 
Andres  Castillero,  and  addressed  to  the  Alcalde  of  the  first  denomina- 
tion of  the  Pueblo  of  San  Jose'  de  Guadalupe,  and  on  the  margin  there 
is  an  order,  purporting  to  be  signed  by  Pacheco.  That  is  all  on  that 
sheet. 

On  the  next  sheet  there  is  a  petition,  purporting  to  be  signed  by 
Andres  Castillero,  addressed  to  the  Alcalde  of  the  first  denomination. 
That  is  all  there  is  on  the  second  sheet. 

The  next  sheet  contains  a  petition  from  Andres  Castillero,  to  the 
Alcalde  of  the  first  denomination,  and  is  all  that  is  contained  on  the 
third  sheet. 

On  the  fourth  sheet  purports  to  be  a  grant  and  possession  to  Andres 
Castillero,  from  Antonio  Maria  Pico,  and  witnessed  by  Antonio  Sunol 
and  Jose*  Noriega  ;  that  is  all,  except  the  County  Recorder's  certifi- 
cate, which  is  contained  on  this  sheet. 

(The  foregoing  question  and  answer,  and  all  questions  and  answers 
relative  to  words,  marks,  appearances,  characters  or  contents,  of  the 
document  spoken  of  by  the  witness,  as  on  file  in  the  office  of  Santa 
Clara  County,  objected  to  by  claimant's  counsel,  for  the  reason  that 
the  said  original  document  is  not  introduced  in  evidence,  and  because 
the  testimony  is  secondary  and  incompetent,  and  immaterial,  and  also 
vague  and  uncertain.) 

Qites.  14. — Please  state  how  the  pages  of  the  traced  copy  corres- 
pond with  the  sheets  of  the  original,  which  you  have  been  just  testify- 
ing to.  * 

Arts.  14. — Page  No.  1  of  the  traced  copy  corresponds  with  the  first 
outside  leaf  of  the  original. 

Pages  2  and  3  of  the  traced  copy  correspond  with  the  first  inside 
sheet  of  the  original. 

Pages  4  and  5  of  the  traced  copy  correspond  with  the  second  inside 
sheet  of  the  original. 

Page  6  corresponds  with  the  third  inside  sheet  of  the  original. 

Pages  7,  8,  and  9  corresponds  with  the  fourth  inside  sheet  of  the 
original  document. 

And  page  10,  of  the  traced  copy,  corresponds  with  the  last  outside 
leaf  of  the  original  document. 


256 

Ques.  15. — Piease  look  at  the  third  inside  sheet  of  the  original  doc- 
ument, and  state  whether  all  the  writing  on  the  said  sheet  is  in  the 
same  hand. 

Ans.  14. — I  should  not  say  it  was. 

(Question  and  answer  objected  to  on  same  grounds  as  question  and 
and  answer  No.  13,  and  for  the  further  reason  that  the  witness  has  not 
been  proved  to  be  an  expert.) 

Ques.  16. — Will  you  please  state  the  words  which  you  think  are 
written  in  a  different  hand  writing  from  the  rest  ? 

Ans.  16. — After  the  word  "  presentacion,"  on  this  sheet,  the  words 
"  no  llendo  en  papel  del  sello  pr  no  haberlo  "  appear  to  me  to  have 
been  written  in  a  different  handwriting. 

(Question  and  answer  objected  to  for  same  reasons  as  the  question 
and  answer  above.) 

Ques.  17. — How  is  the  writing  on  said  sheet  signed,  and  how  ad- 
dressed ? 

Ans.  17. — Signed  with  the  name  of  Andres  Castillero,  and  address- 
ed to  the  Alcalde  of  the  first  denomination  of  the  Pueblo  San  Jose 
Guadalupe,  dated  Santa  Clara,  December  3d,  1845. 

Ques.  18. — What  is  your  knowledge  of  the  general  subject  of  hand 
writing  ? 

Ans.  18. — I  can  tell  a  good  hand  writing  from  a  bad  one ;  I  am  a 
clerk  by  profession,  and  I  can  generally  tell  two  different  hand  writ- 
ings when  I  see  them  on  one  sheet  of  paper. 

Cross-Examination. 

Ques.  19. — State  as  to  the  words  which  you  say  appear  on  the  3d 
inside  sheet,  of  which  you  have  been  testifying  as  a  different  hand 
writing  from  the  balance  of  the  page,  wherein  they  appear  to  differ 
from  the  words  going  before  and  the  words  coming  after. 

Ans.  19. — They  appear  to  be  written  in  a  heavier  hand  than  the 
words  going  before  ;  that  is  all  the  difference  I  can  find.  That  ap- 
pears to  me  to  be  the  only  difference  I  can  find  on  the  page  before  and 
after. 

Direct  Resumed. 

Ques.  20. — Look  again  at  the  writing  referred  to,  and  see  whether 
the  words  which  appear  to  you  to  be  a  different  hand  writing  from  the 
rest  of  the  writing,  present  any  difference  as  to  spaces  between  the 
lines  of  the  writing. 


257 

(Question  objected  to,  because  the  witness  was  examined  in  chief 
upon  this  point,  and  the  examination  closed ;  second,  because  it  was  a 
leading  question  ;  and  third,  because  the  witness  stated  all  the  differ- 
ences he  could  perceive.) 

Ans.  20. — The  words  "  del  sello  pr.  no  haberlo  "  appear  to  be  writ- 
ten a  little  closer  to  the  lines  above  and  below  than  the  rest  of  the  doc- 
ument. 

(Page  6,  of  the  traced  copy,  corresponds  with  the  third  inside  sheet 
of  the  original  document.) 

GEO.  M.  YOELL. 

Sworn  to  and  subscribed  before  me,  this  18th  day  of  August,  A.  D. 
1857. 

J.  EDGAR  GRYMES, 

Special  Commissioner. 


EXHIBIT  R.,  No.  1. 

(act  of  possession — almaden  mine.) 

(Copy.) 

Filed  3  o'clk  P.  M.  18  Jany,  1851. 

J.  T.  RICHARDSON, 

Recorder  S.  0.  0. 
"  The  above  is  written  in  pencil. " 

S.  A.  CLARK, 

Recorder, 
By  Geo.  M.  Yoell, 

Deputy. 

POSESION  DE  LA  MINA  DE  STA.  CLARA,  A^O  DE  1845. 

Sor.  Alcalde  de  1\  Nominacion  de  el  Pueblo  de  S.  Jose  de 
Guadalupe 

pueblo  de  s.  jose       Jose  Castro  Tente  coronel  de  caballa.  de  ejercito  Me- 
a  junio  22  De  jican0j  natural  de  este  Departamt0  ante  la  notoria  justi- 
ce™ 10  pide  ia  ficacion  de  V.  comparesco  y  digo  :  que  representando 
y  Atcwbcar.llase  este  noy  la  persona  y  derechos,  de  el  Capitan  D.  Andres  Cas- 
pac'heco.     tillero  y  demas  individuos  q.  forman  la  compania  (sien- 


258 

do  jo  uno  de  los  acsionistos)  en  la  mina  de  asoge  q.  demmcio  dho 
Sor.  Castilleros  el  dia  tres  de  Diciembre  de  mil  ochocientos  cuarento 
y  cineo  y  se  nos  dio  la  pocesion  el  dia  treivo  la  de  el  mismo  mes  y  ano 
arreglandome  en  todo  k  las  leyes  de  mineria  titulo  sesto  articulo  pri- 
mero  en  q.  consede  a  los  descuhridores  de  minerales  nuevos,  tres  perte- 
nencias  continuas  6  interrumpidar  con  las  medidas  designadas  por  ley ; 
y  por  combenir  asi  al  derecho  que  tiene  la  compania  da  hoy  por  dedu- 
cidas  ante  V.  las  tres  pertenencias  6  continuacion  de  la  primera,  me- 
reciendole  que  se  sirva  unir  este  escrito  al  espediente  de  denuncio  para 
q.  quede  archivado  y  conste  en  todo  tiempo.  No  Uendo  en  papel  de 
el  sello  correspondiente  por  no  haberlo. 

A.  V.     Suplico  provea  de  coniformidad  en  lo  que  recibire  merced 
y  justicia. 

Sta  Clara  Junio  27  de  1846. 

JOSE  CASTRO. 


Sot  Alc\  de  1a.  Nominon 

Andre's  Castillero,  capn.  de  caba  Permte.  y  residente  hoy  en  este 
Departamt0  ante  la  notoria  justificacion  de  V.  hace  presente :  Que  ha- 
biendo  descubierto  una  veta  de  plata  con  ley  de  oro  en  terreno  del 
Rancho  perteneciente  al  Sargte.  retirada  de  la  compania  Presidial  de  S. 
Franc0.  Jose  Reyes  Berreyeza ;  y  queriendo  trabajarla  en  compania, 
suplica  a  V.  q.  araeglada  a  la  ordenanza  de  mineria  de  sirva  fijar  rot- 
ulones  en  los  parages  publicos  de  la  jurisdiccion  pa.  q.  llegada  el  tiempo 
de  la  posesion  juridica,  asegure  mi  derecho  segun  las  leyes  de  la  ma- 
teria. 

A.  V.  suplica,  provea  de  conformidad,  en  lo  que  recibire  merced  y 
justicia :  admitiendo  este  en  papel  comun  por  falta  de  sellada  corres- 
pondiente.    Mision  de  Santa  Clara  Nove  22,  de  1,845. 

ANDRES  CASTILLERO. 


Sr.  Alcalde  de  1a  nominacion  del  Pueblo  de  SN  Jose  Guada- 
lupe. 

Andres  Castillero  Capitan  de  Caballeria  permanente  ante  la  notoria 
justificacion  de  V.  compareno  y  digo :  que  envallando  el  mineral  que 
con  anterioridad  denuncia  a  en  Jusgado  he  vacar  a  mas  de  plata  con 
ley  de  oro  Azogue  lo  qu3  de  en  primeria  de  algunos  concurrentes  que 
podre  cilar  en  caso  oportuno,  y  por  combenir  asi  a  mi  derecho  le  he  de 
mereria  k  V.  que  unia  al  escrito  de  denuncien  se  archive  esta  presen- 
tacion  no  llendo  en  papel  dol  sello  pr.  no  haberlo. 


259 

A.  V.     Suplico  provea  de  conformidad  en  lo  q.  recivire  merced  y 
Justicia.     Santa  Clara  Diciemb6  3  de  1845. 

ANDRES  CASTILLERO. 


Ne  encontrandose  en  el  Depart0  de  California  Diputacion  de  Mine- 
ria  y  siendo  esta  la  unica  vez  desde  la  poblaeion  de  la  Alta  California 
que  se  trabaje  con  arreglo  a  las  leyes  un  mineral,  y  carviendo  ademas 
de  Juez  de  letras  el  Segunda  Distrito  Yo,  el  Alcalde  de  la  nominacion 
C.  Antonio  Ma  Pico  he  benido  acompafiado  de  dos  testigos  pa.  actuar 
por  reseptoria,  a  falta  de  escrivano  publico  que  no  le  hay,  para  dar  po- 
yerian  juridica  de  la  Mina  conocida  con  el  nombre  de  Santa  Clara  en 
esta  jurisdiccion  situada  en  el  Rancho  del  Sargente  Jose  Reyes  Ber- 
reyesa,  por  que  habiendo  teniendo  el  tiempo  que  seiiala  la  ordenanza 
de  mineria  para  deducir  en  accion  el  C.  Andres  Castillero  y  que  otros 
pudieren  alegra  mejor  derecho  desde  el  tiempo  del  denuncia  a  la  fecha 
y  encontrandose  dicho  mineral  con  abundancia  de  metales  esplutadas,  el 
paso  echo  con  las  reglas  del  ante,  y  produciendo  la  elaboracion  de  la 
mina  abundancia  de  Azogue  liquid  segun  las  muestras  que  tiene  el 
Jusgado,  y  utando  tan  recomendado  por  leyes  sigentes  la  proteccion  de 
un  articulo  tan  necesario  para  la  amalgamacion  de  oro  y  plata  en  la 
Republica  he  benido  en  consederle  tres  mil  varas  por  todos  rumbus  a 
reserva  de  lo  que  seiiale  la  ordenanza  Gen1  de  Mineria  por  sea  traba- 
jara  en  compa  de  lo  que  doi  fe  ;  firmando  con  migo  los  testigos  y  que- 
dando  agregado  este  acto  de  posesion  al  cumulo  del  espediente  que 
quedo  depositado  en  el  archivo  de  mi  cargo  no  yendo  puesto  en  el  pa- 
pel  del  Sello  respectivo  que  no  le  hay  en  los  terminos  de  la  ley. 

Juzgado  de  Sn  Jose  Guadalupe  Diciembe  de  mil  ochocientos 

cuarenta  y  cinco. 

ANTONIO  MA  PICO. 

De  asta.  De  asta. 

Antonio  Sunol.  Jose  Nokiega. 

Recorded  (at  request  of  J.  Alex.  Forbes)  at  12  o'clock  M.,  March 
16th,  A.  D.  1855,  in  Book  G.  of  Deeds,  on  pages  484,  485  and  486, 
Records  of  the  County  of  Santa  Clara. 

S.  A.  CLARK,  County  Recorder. 
By  F.  Lewis,  Deputy. 
"Blots  &c." 

S.  A.  CLARK,  Recorder. 
By  Geo.  M.  Yoell,  Deputy. 

Filed  (for)  February  25th,  A.  D.  1853,  at  11  o'clock  A.  M. 

J.  M.  MURPHY,  Recorder. 
By  S.  0.  Houghton,  Deputy. 


260 

Recorder's  Office,  Santa  Clara  County, 
California,  July  25th,  A.  D.  1857. 

I  hereby  certify  that  the  foregoing,  on  pages  1,  2,  3,  4,  5,  6,  7,  8, 
9,  and  10  of  this,  is  a  full,  true,  correct,  and  exact  traced  copy  of  an 
instrument  at  present  in  this  office,  and  which  said  instrument  is  also 
of  record,  and  recorded  in  Book  G.  of  Deeds,  pages  484,  485,  and 
486. 

/  ^      Given  under  my  hand  and  official  seal,  at  office,  in  the 

j  seal  [city  of  San  Jose',  the  day  and  year  last  written. 

( >  S.  A.  CLARK, 

County  Recorder, 
By  Geo.  M.  Yoell, 

Deputy. 


DEPOSITION  OF  H.  C.  MELONE. 

United    States   District   Court, 
Northern  District  of  California. 


The  United  States 

vs. 
Andres  Castillero. 


San  Francisco,  Aug  19, 1857. 


On  this  day,  before  J.  Edgar  Grymes,  a  Special  Commissioner  and 
Referee  appointed  by  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States  for  the 
Northern  District  of  California,  duly  authorized  to  administer  oaths, 
&c,  &c,  came  H.  C.  Melone,  a  witness  produced  on  behalf  of  the 
United  States,  in  Case  No.  420,  being  an  appeal  from  the  Board  of 
Commissioners  to  ascertain  and  settle  the  Private  Land  Claims  in  the 
State  of  California,  in  Case  No.  366  on  the  Docket  of  the  said  Board 
of  Commissioners,  and  was  duly  sworn  and  testified  as  follows. 

Present: — U.  S.  District  Attorney  represented  by  Edmund  Ran- 
dolph, Esq.,  and  Frederick  Billings,  Esq.,  for  claimant. 

Questions  by  Edmund  Randolph,  Esq. 

1st  Ques. — What  is  your  name,  age,  and  place  of  residence  ? 


261 

1st  Acs. — My  name  is  H.  C.  Melone,  fifty  years  old,  and  I  reside 
in  Santa  Clara  County  since  September,  1849. 

2d  Ques. — Heve  you  held  any  public  office  in  Santa  Clara  County, 
or  what  is  now  Santa  Clara  County ;  and  if  so,  when,  and  what  ? 

2d  Ans. — I  was  clerk  of  Court  of  First  Instance,  from  Oct.  1st, 
1849,  until  April,  1850,  when  the  State  Government  was  formed.  I 
was  then  elected  County  Clerk  of  Santa  Clara  County,  and  held  that 
office  until  October,  1853. 

3d  Ques. — During  the  time  that  you  were  Clerk  of  First  Instance 
was  there  any  litigation  in  that  court  respecting  the  quicksilver  mine 
known  as  New  Almaden  ? 

3d  Ans. — There  was. 

4th  Ques. — Please  look  at  the  papers  now  shown  you,  and  say  what 
they  are. 

4th  Ans. — The  first  paper  is  a  petition  of  Robt.  Walkinshaw  to 
Judge  R.  M.  May,  of  the  Court  of  First  Instance,  asking  to  be  put  in 
possession  of  the  quicksilver  mine;  now  marked  "  Exhibit  R,  No.  3." 

The  second  paper  is  a  citation  and  injunction  restraining  James 
Alexander  Forbes  from  working  the  mines,  now  marked  "  Exhibit  R, 
No.  4." 

The  third  paper  is  the  bond  of  Robt.  Walkinshaw  and  Antonio  Go- 
mez ;  now  marked  "  Exhibit  R,  No.  5." 

The  fourth  paper  is  a  notice  from  Robert  Walkinshaw  to  James 
Alex.  Forbes ;  now  marked  "  Exhibit  R,  No.  6." 

The  fifth  paper  is  a  sworn  answer  of  James  Alexander  Forbes,  in 
the  hand-writing  of  J.  M.  Jones,  attorney  for  Forbes,  now  marked 
"  Exhibit  R,  No.  7." 

The  sixth  paper  is  the  transcript  of  proceedings  in  the  same  matter, 
before  Peter  H.  Burnett,  President  of  the  Superior  Tribunal  of  Cali- 
fornia ;  now  marked  "  Exhibit  R,  No.  8." 

5th  Ques. — Are  the  above  some  of  the  original  papers  in  the  suit 
referred  to  in  your  answer  ? 

5th  Ans. — They  aie. 

6th  Ques. — In  whose  hand-writing  are  the  bodies  of  those  papers  ? 

6th  Ans. — "  R,  No.  3,"  is  in  the  hand-writing  of  Horace  Hawes, 
attorney  for  Robt.  Walkinshaw. 

"  R,  No.  4,"  I  think  is  in  the  hand-writing  of  C.  T.  Ryland,  a  law. 
yer  of  San  Jose\ 

"  R,  No.  5,"  is  in  the  hand-writing  of  Horace  Hawes. 

"  R,  No.  6,"  I  think  is  in  the  hand-writing  of  C.  T.  Ryland. 

"  R,  No.  7,"  is  in  the  hand-writing  of  J.  M.  Jones,  attorney  for 
James  Alexander  Forbes. 

"R,  No.  8,"  I  do  not  know  the  hand-writing  of  the  body,  but  the 
order  is  in  the  hand-writing  of  Peter  H.  Burnett,  and  that  is  his  own 
signature. 


262 

7th  Ques. — Do  you  know  the  signature  of  Robert  Walkinshaw,  and  is 
this  his  signature  which  is  appended  to  "Exhibit  R,  No.  3  ?  " 

7th  Ans. — Mr.  Walkinshaw's  name  is  signed  twice  on  said  docu- 
ment, and  they  are  both  his  genuine  signatures. 

8th  Ques. — Do  you  know  the  signature  of  R.  M.  May,  judge  of  the 
1st  Instance  ?  if  so,  state  if  the  signature  appended  to  "  Exhibit  R, 
No.  4,"  is  his  genuine  signature. 

8th  Ans. — I  know  his  signature,  and  it  is  his  genuine  signature. 

9th  Ques. — Do  you  know  the  signatures  of  "  Exhibit  R,  No.  5  ?  " 
if  so,  state  whose  signatures  they  are,  and  whether  they  are  genuine 
or  not. 

9th  Ans. — I  know  them  all ;  the  signatures  of  Robt.  Walkinshaw 
and  Antonio  Gomez,  they  are  both  genuine  ;  the  witnesses  signatures 
are  also  genuine. 

10th  Ques. — The  same  question  as  to  signatures  of  "  Exhibit  No.  6." 

10th  Ans.— The  signature  to  "  Exhibit  R,  No.  6,"  is  Robert  Walk- 
inshaw's genuine  signature. 

11th  Ques.— The  same  of"  R,  No.  7." 

11th  Ans. — The  signature  is  James  Alex.  Forbes  ;  it  is  his  genuine 
signature. 

12th  Ques.— The  same  of  «  R,  No.  8." 

12th  Ans. — Has  already  been  testified  to. 

13th  Ques. — During  the  time  that  this  litigation  was  pending,  have 
you  heard  the  parties  plaintiff  and  defeudant  converse  on  the  subject 
of  their  right  and  title  and  claim  in  the  New  Almaden  mine  ?  and  if 
yea,  what  declarations  have  you  heard  them  make  ? 

(Question  objected  to  by  claimant's  counsel  on  the  ground  that  the 
testimony  sought  is  immaterial,  incompetent,  irrelevant,  and  hearsay.) 

13th  Ans. — I  have  conversed  with  both  of  the  parties  on  the  sub- 
ject, about  their  right  to  the  possession  of  the  mine,  and  controlling  it. 
I  never  heard  Mr.  Walkinshaw  say  anything  about  what  title  he  held 
under,  but  I  have  heard  Mr.  Forbes  on  several  occasions  say  he  held 
it  under  a  denouncement. 

(Answer  objected  to  on  same  ground  as  the  objection  to  the  ques- 
tion, and  also  because  it  is  not  responsive.) 

14th  Ques. — Did  you  ever  hear  either  Forbes  or  Walkinshaw,  at  the 
time  mentioned  above,  claim  to  hold  the  mine  by  any  other  right  than 
that  of  denouncement  ? 

(Question  objected  to  on  same  ground  as  preceding  question,  and 
also  because  it  is  leading.) 


263 

14th  Ans. — Not  to  my  recollection. 

15th  Ques. — Did  you  ever  hear,  at  that  time,  either  Forbes  or 
Walkinshaw  speak  of  having  any  right  to  the  land  in  which  the  mine 
is  situated,  by  grant  from  the  Government  at  the  City  of  Mexico,  or 
from  any  other  source  ? 

(Objected  to  for  same  reasons  as  14th  question.) 

15th  Ans. — I  do  not  recollect  of  having  ever  heard  either  of  them 
claim  it  under  a  grant  of  any  kind. 

16th  Ques. — Did  you  ever  hear  them  or  either  of  them,  at  the  time 
mentioned,  speak  of  having  received  from  the  President  of  Mexico,  or 
from  the  Junta  de  Fomento  y  Administrativa  de  Mineria,  any  confirm- 
ation of  their  mining  rights  and  mining  possession  under  their  de- 
nouncement ? 

(Same  objection  as  to  question  preceding.) 

16th  Ans. — It  was  about  that  time,  but  I  cannot  say  that  it  was 
exactly  at  that  time,  Mr.  Forbes  told  me  that  they  had  got  their  right 
to  the  mine  from  the  City  of  Mexico  established  about  three  days  be- 
fore the  treaty  of  peace  was  ratified. 

17th  Ques. — Did  you  charge  your  mind  particularly  with  these 
statements  of  Mr.  Forbes  ? 

(Same  objection  as  the  preceding  question.) 

17th  Ans. — I  did  somewhat,  sir. 

18th  Ques. — Do  you  remember  anything  else  stated  by  Forbes  or 
Walkinshaw,  about  that  time,  upon  the  subject  of  their  right  to  this 
mine  ? 

(Same  objection  as  preceding  question.) 

18th  Ans. — I  do  not  think  I  ever  heard  any  more  that  what  I  have 
stated.  I  never  heard  Mr.  Walkinshaw  say  anything  of  the  right  of 
the  mine  more  than  the  right  of  possession  amongst  the  owners. 

19th  Ques. — What  were  your  opportunities  to  hear  either  of  these 
parties  speak  on  this  subject  ?  were  they  frequent  or  not  ? 

(Same  objection  as  preceding  question.) 

19th  Ans. — My  opportunities  were  very  good  at  that  time.     I  saw 
them  almost  every  day,  and  held  conversations  with  them  frequently. 
20th  Ques. — Were  there  any  other  proceedings  about  that  time  that 


264 

you  have  spoken  of  taken  in  reference,  to  the  mine  of  New  Almaden  ; 
if  so,  what  were  they,  and  by  whom  ? 

(Same  objection  as  preceding  question.) 

20th  Ans. — There  was  another  proceeding  had  by  Horace  Hawes. 

21st  Ques. — Who  was  Horace  Hawes  ?  What  connection,  if  any, 
did  Horace  Hawes  have  with  the  litigation  at  that  time  pending  be- 
tween Walkinshaw  and  Forbes,  and  of  which  you  have  just  testified  ? 

(Same  objection  as  preceding  question.) 

21st  Ans. — Horace  Hawes  was  the  attorney  for  Walkinshaw  in  the 
suit  of  which  I  have  been  speaking. 

2 2d  Ques. — Do  you  mean  to  say  that  Horace  Hawes  was  attorney 
for  Walkinshaw  in  said  suit  against  Forbes,  at  the  same  time  at  which 
he  took  the  proceedings  in  reference  to  the  mine  of  New  Almaden,  of 
which  you  have  just  spoken  in  your  answer  to  the  20th  question  ? 

(Same  objection  as  preceding  question.) 

22d  Ans. — It  was  about  that  time. 

23d  Ques. — Was  that  litigation  still  pending  at  the  time  when  any 
part  of  the  proceedings  of  Horace  Hawes  was  taken  ? 

(Same  objection  as  preceding  question.) 

23d  Ans. — It  was. 

24th  Ques. — A  paper  is  now  shown  to  the  witness,  and  he  is  asked 
what  it  is. 

24th  Ans. — He  says  that  it  is  a  paper  purporting  to  be  a  denounce- 
ment of  the  mine  of  New  Almaden  by  Horace  Hawes  ;  a  certified  copy 
of  the  original  examined  and  compared  by  himself,  and  says  that  it  is  a 
true  and  correct  copy. 

25th  Ques. — Where  is  the  original  of  that  paper  ? 

25th  Ans. — It  is  in  the  clerk's  office  in  San  Jose. 

26th  Ques. — In  whose  hand-writing  is  the  original  there,  if  you  re- 
member ? 

26th  Ans. — In  the  hand-writing  of  Horace  Hawes,  with  his  genuine 
signature  attached  to  it. 

27th  Ques. — Before  whom  does  the  paper  purport  to  have  been  ex- 
ecuted ? 

27th  Ans. — Before  R.  M.  May,  First  Alcalde  of  the  District  of  San 
Jose,  and  witneessed  by  myself  and  John  T.  Richardson,  and  I  saw  the 
paper  executed. 


265 

28th  Ques. — By  whom  is  the  order  which  follows  on  the  above  pa- 
per signed  ? 

28th  Ans. — It  was  signed  by  R.  M.  May,  First  Alcalde  of  the  Dis- 
trict of  San  Jose',  and  witnessed  by  myself  and  James  F.  Reed. 

29th  Ques. — And  the  writing  which  follows  the  above,  by  whom 
was  that  signed  ? 

29th  Ans. — R.  M.  May,  First  Alcalde,  and  Judge  of  the  First  In- 
stance. 

30th  Ques. — Did  you  post  up  the  notices  of  this  denouncement  of 
Horace  Hawes,  in  pnrsuance  of  the  order  of  the  Alcalde  ? 

30th  Ans.— I  did. 

31st  Ques. — For  how  long  a  time  did  you  post  up  those  notices  ? 

31st  Ans. — I  posted  three  notices  three  consecutive  Sundays  upon 
the  church  door  of  the  Pueblo  of  San  Jose*,  the  Juzgado,  and  the 
church  at  Santa  Clara. 

32d  Ques. — Were  you  paid  for  your  labor  ? 

32d  Ans. — I  was  paid  by  Mr.  Hawes. 

33d  Ques. — During  the  pendency  of  these  proceedings  and  de- 
nouncements, did  you  hear  any  conversations  of  Walkinshaw,  Forbes 
or  Hawes,  on  the  subject  of  the  title  and  ownership  of  the  New  Alma- 
den  mine  ? 

(Question  objected  to  for  same  reason  as  14th  question.) 

33d  Ans. — I  had  frequent  conversations  with  Mr.  Hawes  about  the 
title,  but  I  do  not  recollect  if  I  had  any  with  Forbes  or  Walkinshaw. 
Mr.  Hawes  contended  that  Forbes  and  Walkinshaw,  and  all  the 
company,  had  abandoned  the  mine  long  enough  to  have  it  denounced. 

(Answer  objected  to  for  same  reasons  as  answer  14,  and  for  further 
reason  that  it  is  not  responsive.) 

34th  Ques. — During  these  proceedings  of  Hawes,  did  you  or  did  you 
not  at  any  time  see  Hawes  and  Walkinshaw  together  in  your  office  on 
any  business  connected  with  the  suit  against  Forbes  pending,  or  any 
other  matter  in  which  Hawes  was  acting  as  the  attorney  of  Walkin- 
shaw? 

(Question  objected  to  for  same  reasons  as  preceding  question.) 

34th  Ans. — I  saw  him  there  frequently  talking  with  Mr.  Walkinshaw 
during  the  pendency  of  this  suit  and  the  denouncement.  I  do  not  remem- 
ber of  ever  seeing  him  in  the  office  when  the  subject  matter  of  the 
denouncement  was  before  the  court  or  Alcalde. 

35th  Ques. — After  the  institution  of  the  proceedings  and  denounce- 

25 


266 

ment,  did  there  appear  to  be  any  difference  in  the  deportment  of 
Walkinshaw  towards  Mr.  Hawes,  and  what  seemed  the  character  of 
their  relations  towards  one  and  other  ? 

(Question  objected  to  for  same  reasons  as  preceding  question.) 

35th  Ans. — I  saw  no  difference  in  their  deportment,  and  their  rela- 
tions seemed  to  be  the  same  as  they  were  before. 

Exhibits  marked  H.  H.  No.  1,  2,  3,  4,  5,  6,  7,  8,  9, 10,  11,  12, 
13,  now  filed  and  offered  in  evidence,  and  objected  to  for  reasons  to 
be  found  at  the  end  of  the  deposition. 

Ques.  36. — Please  state  what  papers  these  are,  if  you  know  ;  of 
what  papers  they  are  copies ;  whether  they  are  true  and  exact  copies ; 
whether  you  know  the  signatures  on  the  originals  from  which  they  are 
copied,  and  whether  those  signatures  are  genuine. 

36th  Ans. — All  these  papers,  from  No.  1  to  13  inclusive,  are  true 
and  exact  copies  which  I  myself  compared  with  the  originals,  now  in 
the  office  of  the  County  Clerk  of  Santa  Clara  County,  and  the  signa- 
tures are  all  genuine.  Those  pencil  marks  appearing  on  said  copies, 
do  not  belong  to  the  copies,  but  were  put  there  as  memorandums  for 
myself. 

37th  Ques. — During  the  pendency  of  the  suit  of  Walkinshaw  against 
Forbes,  and  of  the  proceedings  of  Horace  Hawes  in  denouncements,  was 
there  offered  in  evidenee  or  exhibited  to  you,  any  document  purporting 
to  be  a  record  of  the  original  denouncement  of  the  New  Almaden 
mine,  and  of  possession  of  said  mine,  given  by  any  Alcalde  in  the  year 
1845? 

(Question  objected  to  for  same  reasons  as  14th  question.) 

37th  Ans. — There  was  none  that  I  know  of.  I  should  have  re- 
membered it  if  I  had  seen  it. 

38tb  Ques. — Look  at  the  paper  now  shown  you,  which  is  the  same 
which  was  yesterday  in  your  presence  produced  by  G.  M.  Yoell,  De- 
puty Recorder  of  the  County  of  Santa  Clara,  then  under  examination, 
and  which  the  said  Yoell  testified  was  a  paper  now  on  file  among  the 
records  in  the  office  of  the  Recorder  of  said  County,  which  paper  is 
endorsed,  "  Posesion  de  lamina  de  Sta.  Clara,  Alio  de  1845,"  and  say 
whether  this  paper  was  offered  in  evidence  in  either  the  aforesaid  suit 
of  Walkinshaw  against  Forbes,  or  the  denouncement  by  Horace  Hawes 
of  which  you  have  spoken,  or  was  exhibited  to  you  or  seen  by  you  at 
any  time  during  the  said  proceedings,  or  either  of  them. 

(Question  objected  to  for  same  reasons  as  14th  question.) 


267 

38th  Ans. — I  think  not.  I  do  not  remember  to  have  ever  seen  this 
paper  until  a  short  time  since.  It  was  shown  me  in  the  Recorder's 
office  of  Santa  Clara  County. 

39th  Ques. — What  opportunities  have  you  ever  had  for  making  your- 
self familiar  with  the  records  and  papers,  books  and  documents,  contain- 
ed in  the  office  of  the  First  Alcalde  of  the  Pueblo  of  San  Jos6,  and  of 
obtaining  a  clear  knowledge  of  what  papers  were  there  recorded,  filed 
or  kept  ? 

(Question  objected  to  for  same  reasons  as  14th  question.) 

39th  Ans. — I  was  clerk  for  Judge  May  both  as  Alcalde  and  Judge 
of  the  First  Instance,  and  had  the  custody  of  all  the  books  and  papers 
in  the  office,  and  did  the  recording.  After  the  resignation  of  Judge 
May,  which  took  place  some  time  in  November,  1849,  and  the  appoint- 
ment of  J.  C.  Conroy  as  First  Alcalde  and  Judge  Richardson  as  Judge 
of  the  First  Instance,  I  continued  to  do  most  of  the  recording,  and  had 
access  to  the  papers  and  books,  and  had  the  custody,  in  a  manner, 
of  said  papers  and  books,  until  some  time  in- April,  1850,  when  the 
state  government  went  into  operation.  At  that  time  I  took  all  the  re- 
cords, of  every  description,  and  the  books  and  the  papers  belonging  to 
all  the  suits  in  the  court  of  the  First  Instance,  and  carried  them  to  my 
office  as  County  Clerk,  and  delivered  such  of  those  as  I  thought  prop- 
erly belonged  to  the  County  Recorder's  office,  to  John  T.  Richardson, 
the  then  County  Recorder. 

40th  Ques. — During  all  this  time  of  which  you  have  just  spoken, 
and  all  your  connection  with  the  records  of  which  you  have  just  spok- 
en, did  you  ever  see  among  them,  or  in  any  of  the  offices  of  which  you 
have  spoken,  or  anywhere  else,  the  paper  described  in  the  38th  ques- 
as  "  Posesion  de  la  mina,  &c."  ? 

(Question  objected  to  for  same  reasons  as  14th  question.) 

40th  Ans. — I  do  not  recollect  of  ever  having  seen  it  until  a  short 
time  ago  in  the  Recorder's  office. 

41st  Ques. — In  view  of  the  suit  between  Walkinshaw  and  Forbes, 
and  the  denouncement  by  Horace  Hawes,  and  the  general  interest  felt 
on  the  subject  of  the  mine  of  New  Almaden,  if  you  had  seen  such  a 
paper  would  you  not  have  remembered  it  ? 

(Question  objected  to  for  same  reasons  as  14th  question.) 

41st  Ans. — I  think  I  should  have  remembered  it  had  I  seen  it  at  the 
time,  owing  to  the  suits  then  pending,  but  not  from  the  general  inter- 
est taken,  for  there  seemed  none  except  by  the  contending  parties. 


268 

42d  Ques. — Do  I  understand  you  to  say  that  there  was  no  general 
interest  in  and  about  San  Jose'  felt  on  the  subject  of  the  mine  of  New 
Almaden,  in  the  Fall  of  1849  ? 

42d  Ans. — I  think  there  was  no  general  interest  felt  except  by  the 
contending  parties. 

43d  Ques. — When  you  made  the  division  and  separation  of  the  re- 
cords of  the  Alcalde  and  Judge  of  the  First  Instance  among  the  prop- 
er offices,  in  April,  1850,  was  it  not  necessary  to  examine  all  the  doc- 
uments carefully  ? 

43d  Ans. — I  thought  so,  and  so  acted  to  the  best  of  my  ability. 

44th  Ques. — Paper  marked  "  Exhibit  R,  No.  9,"  was  here  shown 
to  the  witness  and  he  was  asked  to  state  what  the  paper  is. 

(Question  objected  to  for  the  reason  that  the  paper  will  show  for 
itself,  and  the  evidence  sought  is  incompetent  and  immaterial.) 

44th  Ans. — This  paper  is  a  true  and  correct  copy,  compared  by 
myself,  of  a  record  in  Book  No.  2,  which  was  kept  in  the  Alcalde's 
office,  and  removed  by  me  to  the  County  Recorder's  office  of  Santa 
Clara. 

(The  objection  to  the  filing  of  this  paper  will  be  found  at  the  end  of 
the  deposition.) 

(The  paper  marked  "  Exhibit  R,  No.  9,"  now  filed  and  offered  in 
evidence  by  the  counsel  for  the  U.  S.) 

Cross-Examination. 

45th  Ques. — State  the  whole  time  you  were  in  any  way  connected 
with  the  archives  of  Santa  Clara  County,  or  the  District  of  San  Jose. 

45th  Ans. — I  went  in  the  office  of  tne  Alcalde  and  Judge  of  the 
First  Instance  of  the  District  of  San  Jose',  about  the  1st  of  October, 
1849,  and  continued  there  until  April,  1850,  when  the  state  govern- 
ment went  into  operation,  when  I  was  elected  County  Clerk,  and  had 
nothing  farther  to  do  with  the  records,  farther  than  the  judicial  part 
of  them. 

46th  Ques. — During  this  period  state  what  were  the  extent,  num- 
ber and  condition  of  the  archives. 

46th  Ans. — I  cannot  state  the  number  of  the  papers,  but  there 
were  quite  a  number  of  them,  and  in  a  very  bad  condition,  thrown 
about  loosely.  I  could  not  read  Spanish  at  that  time,  and  cannot  state 
the  various  papers.  The  papers  were  kept  in  a  press  about  four  or 
five  feet  wide,  by  six  feet  in  height,  and  about  eighteen  inches  deep. 


269 

47th  Ques. — Do  I  understand  you  to  say  that  during  the  whole  of 
this  period  you  could  not  read  the  Spanish  language  ? 

47th  Ans.— -Yes. 

48th  Ques. — Did  you  make  yourself  acquainted  with  the  titles  or 
contents  of  the  documents  in  the  Spanish  language  in  the  archives  ? 

48th  Ans.  I  had  an  interpreter  to  look  over  them  and  to  inform 
me  what  papers  were  to  go  to  the  office  I  was  taking  them  to,  and 
through  him  I  became  partially  acquainted  with  the  contents  and  na- 
ture of  the  papers. 

49th  Ques. — Did  you  yourself  personally  or  otherwise  examine  the 
Spanish  documents  previous  to  this  preparation  for  removal  in  April, 
1850,  when  you  say  you  had  an  interpreter  examining  them  ? 

49th  Ans. — I  did  not  thoroughly  ;  partially  so. 

50th  Ques. — Did  the  interpreter,  in  dividing  the  papers  to  go  to  the 
different  offices,  make  a  memorandum  of  the  individual  documents,  or 
call  them  off  separately  to  you,  or  did  he  make  a  general  division,  put- 
ting in  one  class  the  judicial  documents,  and  in  the  other  the  docu- 
ments belonging  to  the  County  Recorder's  office  ? 

5th  Ans. — I  requested  him  to  look  over  and  see  what  papers  re- 
lated to  suits  in  the  Court  of  the  First  Instance,  and  what  deeds  and 
mortgages  there  was  there,  and  he  did  so,  but  made  no  memorandum 
that  I  know  of.  I  think  he  called  them  off  individually.  I  carried 
over  nothing  but  what  belonged  to  the  Court  of  the  First  Instance  and 
some  deeds.  The  rest  of  the  papers  belonged  to  the  office  of  the 
mayor,  and  were  left  in  charge  of  the  mayor. 

51st  Ques. — Were  there  not  some  papers  in  Spanish  which  were 
transferred  to  the  County  Recorder's  office,  which  were  not  called  off 
to  you,  and  which  you  did  not  personally  examine  ? 

51st  Ans. — There  was  not.  I  examined  every  one  that  was  taken 
to  the  Recorder's  office. 

52d  Ques. — Is  your  recollectian  at  this  time  of  the  Spanish  docu- 
ments in  the  archives  sufficient  to  enable  you  to  identify  every  paper 
that  was -there  before  they  were  removed  from  the  archives  ? 

52d  Ans. — It  is  not. 

53d.  Ques. — Might  there  not  have  been  documents  called  over  to 
you  and  transferred  to  the  Recorder's  office  which  now  being  shown 
you  would  not  recollect  ? 

53d  Ans. — I  think  not,  for  I  feel  confident  that  no  Spanish  docu- 
ments went  to  the  Recorder's  office  at  that  time.  There  might  have 
been  documents  called  over  that  remained  in  the  office  which  I  do  not 
now  recollect. 

54th  Ques. — Were  all  those  Spanish  papers  which,  at  the  time  of 
this  separation,  were  not  transferred  and  left  in  the  office,  called  over  to 
you? 

54th  Ans. — I  could  not  say  whether  they  were  all  called  ovlr  or 


270 

not.  Probably  they  were  not,  because  there  were  a  good  many  letters 
and  other  papers  of  no  value,  as  I  supposed. 

55th  Ques. — In  this  examination  of  papers  was  it  not  your  sole  ob- 
ject to  get  the  papers  relating  to  suits  to  go  to  the  County  Clerk's  office, 
and  deeds  and  mortgages  to  go  to  the  County  Recorder's  office,  and  to 
leave  all  the  balance,  whatever  that  balance  might  be  ? 

55th  Ans. — It  was  ;  so  far  as  the  Recorder's  office  was  concerned, 
I  was  not  so  particular  except  so  far  as  those  I  had  recorded  myself. 

56th  Ques. — After  this  separation  did  you  ever  examine  the  docu- 
ments and  papers  left  in  the  Mayor's  office  ? 

56th  Ans. — I  never  did. 

57th  Ques. — Did  you  at  that  time  know  particularly  the  individual 
papers  making  up  the  balance  left  behind  ? 

57th  Ans. — I  did  not. 

58th  Ques. — Might  not  the  document  referred  to  in  question  38  have 
been  in  the  Archives  and  left  with  the  balance  in  the  Mayor's  office 
and  you  not  have  known  it  ? 

58th  Ans. — It  is  very  possible. 

Direct  Resumed. 

59th  Ques. — Did  you  know  a  man  by  the  name  of  Dolores  Pache- 
co  ?  if  you  did,  is  he  dead  or  alive  ?  Do  you  know  his  hand  writing 
and  signature  well  ?  if  you  did,  in  what  manner  did  he  sign  his  name — 
as  Dolores  Pecheco  or  Pacheco  alone  ?  At  what  time  was  he  Alcalde? 

59th  Ans. — I  knew  Dolores  Pacheco  ;  he  is  dead ;  I  know  his 
hand  writing  and  signature  ;  he  signed  his  name  Dolores  Pacheco  ; 
I  never  knew  him  to  sign  Pacheco  alone.  I  do  not  know  of  my  own 
knowledge  when  he  was  Alcalde  ;  the  records  do  not  say.  I  have 
heard  him  say  that  he  was  xllcalde  in  1845,  and  possibly  heard  him 
say  in  1846  also. 

60th  Ques. — Is  that  his  signature  on  the  margin  of  the  paper  Po- 
sesion  de  la  mina,  &c,  the  same  referred  to  in  question  38,  and  which 
you  have  now  before  you  ? 

60th  Ans. — The  formation  of  the  letters  are  very  similar  to  his  sig- 
nature, but  the  signature  is  in  a  better  hand  than  his,  and  this  is  the 
only  instance  that  I  have  seen  it  signed  without  "  Dolores." 

61st  Ques. — During  the  suit  of  Walkinshaw  and  Forbes  and  the 
denouncement  by  Horace  Hawes,  of  which  you  have  testified,  or  at 
any  time  before  the  division  of  the  archives  of  which  you  have  also 
testified,  did  you  ever  hear  Forbes  or  Walkinshaw  say  that  there  was 
any  record  of  the  denouncement  and  possession  of  the  mine  of  New 
Almaden  among  the  archives  in  your  charge  ?  Did  they  never  ask 
you  to  search  for  such  record  amongst  such  archives,  or  ask  your  per- 
mission to  search  there  for  it  themselves  ? 


271 

61st  Ans. — I  do  not  think  that  they  ever  did.  I  think  they  never 
asked  me  to  search,  or  asked  permission  to  search  for  them. 

(The  counsel  for  claimant  objects  to  questions  59  and  60  as  intro- 
ducing new  matter  not  called  for  by  the  cross  examination,  and  objects 
to  question  61  as  leading  to  hearsay  evidence  and  therefore  immaterial 
and  incompetent. 

52d  Ques. — Where  was  the  press  which  contained  the  archives  be- 
fore the  removal  kept  ? 

62d  Ans.— In  the  Alcalde's  room  where  I  had  my  office. 

(The  questions  relative  to  the  character  or  contentsjof  the  papers 
shown  to  the  witness  and  marked  respectively  Exhibits  R.,  No.  3  ;  R. 
No.  4  ;  R.,  No.  5  ;  R.,  No.  6  ;  R.,  No.  7  ;  and  R.,  No.  8,  were  ob- 
jected to  by  attorney  for  claimant,  as  they  were  put,  and  the  answers 
objected  to  as  they  were  given,  on  the  grounds  that  the  papers  must 
explain  themselves  and  that  the  evidence  is  incompetent,  irrelevant  and 
immaterial.  The  questions  thus  objected  -  are  from  numbers  four  to 
twelve  inclusive.) 

(The  papers  attached  as  Exhibits  and  numbered  respectively  Exhibit 
R,  No.  3  ;  R.,  No.  4  ;  R.,  No.  5 ;  R.,  No.  6  ;  R.,  No.  7  ;  and  R., 
No.  8,  were  severally  objected  to  by  attorney  for  claimant,  as  they 
were  offered,  on  the  ground  that  they  were  not  properly  proven,  and 
for  the  further  reason  that  each  and  all  of  them  are  incompetent,  ir- 
relevant, immaterial  and  impertinent  to  the  issue.) 

(The  Exhibits  marked  respectively  H.  H.,  No.  1  to  No.  13  inclusive 
and  also  Exhibit  R.  No.  9,  were  severally  objected  to  by  attorney  for 
claimant,  as  they  were  offered,  because  the  originals  were  not  pro- 
duced nor  duly  proven ;  also  because  they  are  copies  not  duly  certi- 
fied nor  proven  ;  are  secondary  evidence,  and  incompetent,  irrelevant 
and  immaterial.) 

H.  C.  MELONE. 

Sworn  to  and  subscribed  before  me  this  19th  day  of  August,  A.  D. 
1857. 

J.  EDGAR  GRYMES, 
Special  Commissioner. 

Filed,  Aug.  29, 1857.  W.  H.  Chevers, 

Deputy. 


272 
EXHIBIT  R.  No.  3. 

WALKINSHAW  VS.  FORBES — PETITION. 

To  the  Honorable  Richard  M.  May,  Judge  of  First  Instance  in  and 
for  the  District  of  San  Jose  : 

Ths  Petition  of  Robert  Walkinshaw  of  said  District  respectfully 
showeth  unto  your  Honor  that  he  is  and  has  been  from  the  month  of 
April  1847  hitherto  in  lawful  possession  of  the  Quicksilver  mine  sit- 
uated in  said  District  known  by  the  name  of  New  Almaden,  and  that 
by  title  derived  under  the  original  act  of  registry  he  is  the  owner  of 
one-eighth  part  thereof. 

That  while  so  in  possession  by  virtue  of  his  own  right  and  interest 
and  and  the  consent  and  agreement  of  all  parties  interested,  there  has 
been  extracted  by  him  and  under  his  direction  a  large  quanty  of  val- 
uable ore  which  still  lies  at  the  mouth  of  the  said  mine  with  the  ex- 
ception of  such  parts  and  parcels  thereof  as  have  been  unlawfully  car- 
ried away  as  hereinafter  mentioned,  and  a  portion  which  has  been  bene- 
ficiated  by  your  petitioner. 

And  your  Petitioner  further  showeth  that  James  Alexander  Forbes 
without  licence  from  your  petitioner  but  contrary  to  his  express  pro- 
hibition has  unlawfully  seized  and  carry  away  a  larga  quantity  of  the 
said  ores  and  still  threatens  to  repeat  the  said  trespass  and  to  inter- 
rupt and  disturb  your  Petitioner  in  the  possession  of  said  property 
without  any  right  to  do  so,  and  without  due  and  legal  process,  and 
that  your  petitioner  justly  fears  that  without  a  restraining  order  in  this 
behalf  great  and  irreparable  injury  will  result  to  your  Petitioner. 

Wherefore  your  Petitioner,  alledging  that  as  against  the  said  James 
Alexander  Forbes,  he  has  the  legal  right  to  remain  in  peaceable  pos- 
session of  the  said  property,  and  that  he  ought  not  to  be  deprived 
thereof  without  the  adjudication  of  the  Competent  tribunals,  and  inas- 
much as  the  Courts  of  the  Country  are  open  to  the  said  Forbes,  prays 
that  your  Honor  will  cause  the  said  James  Alexander  Forbes  to  ap- 
pear at  a  certain  day  to  answer  this  Petition,  and  that  in  the  meantime 
he  may  be  restrained  and  required  to  desist  from  the  Commission  of 
the  unlawful  acts  aforesaid,  and  that  such  other  and  further  relief  may 
be  granted  in  the  premises  as  may  be  just  &  lawful. 

ROBERT  WALKINSHAW. 

Oct.  18th,  1849. 

Territory  of  California,         )  gg 
District  of  San  Jose.  ) 

Robert  Walkinshaw  being  duly  sworn  says  that  the  facts  set  forth 


273 

in  the  foregoing  Petition  are  true  to  the  best  of  his  knowledge  and 
belief. 

ROBERT  WALKINSHAW. 

Sworn  and  subscribed  before  me  Oct.  18th,  1849. 

R.  M.  MAY, 

1st  Alcalde  of  Dis.  Jan  Jose*. 
Endorsed : 

Filed,  Oct.  18th,  1849,  at  1-2  past  12  o'clock,  M. 


EXHIBIT  R.,  No.  4. 
walkinshaw  vs.  forbes — citation. 
Territory  of  California, 


A 


District  of  San  Jose.  r 

Robert  Walkinshaw  having  by  petition  verefied  by  oath  represented 
to  the  undersigned  Judge  of  first  Instance  in  and  for  the  said  District 
that  he  is  and  has  been  since  the  month  of  April  1847  hitherto  in  lawful 
and  peaceable  possession  of  the  Quicksilver  mine  situated  in  said  Dis- 
trict known  by  the  name  of  New  Almaden  and  that  he  still  claims  the 
right  of  possession  and  of  a  large  quantity  of  ore  upon  the  premises 
and  having  also  made  complaint  that  James  Alexander  Forbes  is  threat- 
ening to  tresspass  upon  and  illegally  interrupt  his  possession  and  to 
take  and  carry  away  the  said  ore  as  he  has  actually  done  upon  a  for- 
mer occasion  praying  that  said  J.  A.  Forbes  may  be  cited  to  answer 
the  complaint  and  that  in  the  meantime  he  may  be  prohibited  from  the  re- 
petition of  these  unlawful  acts  Now  therefore  said  Walkinshaw  hav- 
ing entered  into  sufficient  bond  with  good  security  to  answer  all  damages 
that  the  said  Forbes  may  sustain  from  the  execution  of  this  restrain- 
ing order,  it  is  ordered  that  the  said  James  Alexander  Forbes  do  ap- 
pear before  the  undersigned  Judge  of  the  First  Instance  of  the  said 
District  at  the  Juzgada  in  the  Pueblo  de  San  Jose  on  the  6th  day  of 
November  1849  to  answer  the  said  complaint  and  that  in  the  mean- 
time the  said  James  Alexander  Forbes  and  all  persons  acting  by  his 
command  do  absolutely  refrain  and  desist  from  interrupting  or  in  any 
manner  interfering  with  the  possession  of  the  said  mine  without  licence 
of  the  said  Walkinshaw,  and  from  conveying  away  any  part  of  said 
ores,  or  any  property  pertaining  thereto  or  in  any  other  manner  tress- 
passing upon  the  property  in  the  said  Walkinshaw's  possession,  but  this 
order  is  without  prejudice  to  any  legal  right  or  remedies  that  the  said 


274 

James  Alexander  Forbes  or  other  parties  interested  may  think  proper 
to  insist  upon  or  pursue  before  the  proper  Tribunal. 

R.  C.  Keys  Sheriff  of  said  District  is  charged  with  the  execution 
of  this  order.  Given  under  my  hand  and  seal  at  the  Pueblo  of  San 
Jose'  in  said  District  this  I8th  day  of  October  1849. 

R.  M.  MAY,  Judge  1st  Instance. 

Attest :  

H.  C.  Melone,  Clerk. 

*  L.    S. 


Endorsed : 

Executed  this  Citation  by  giving  to  J.  A.  Forbes,   on   the    20th 
of  Oct.  1849  a  true  copy  of  within. 

R.  C.  KEYES,  Sheriff. 
Fees,  81,75. 


EXHIBIT  R.,  No.  5. 

WALKINSHAW  VS.   FORBES — BOND. 

Know  all  men  by  these  presents  that  We  Robert  Walkinshaw  and 
Antonio  Gamies  are  held  and  firmly  bound  unto  James  Alexander 
Forbes  in  the  sum  of  Twenty-five  thousand  dollars  conditioned  to  indem- 
nify and  make  good  to  the  said  Forbes  all  and  any  injury  damages  and 
costs  that  may  accrue  and  be  adjudged  to  him  to  him  in  consequence 
of  the  issuing  of  a  certain  restraining  order  of  this  date  by  the  Judge 
of  First  Instance  of  the  District  of  San  Jose*  on  said  Walkinshaw's 
application  prohibing  the  said  Forbes  from  trespassing  upon  the  mine 
called  New  Almaden  and  from  carrying  away  the  ores  thereof  till  the 
further  order  of  said  Court  of  first  Instance,  in  case  the  said  Walkin- 
shaw shall  fail  to  sustain  his  said  complaint. 

Witness  our  hands  and  seals,  Oct.  18,  1849. 

ROBERT  WALKINSHAW,     [seal.] 
ANTONIO  be  GAMIEZ,  [seal.] 

Witness :  Alcalde. 

Interlineation  in  8    &    9    &   11th 
line  from  top  &  erasure  in  10th. 

John  T.  Richardson. 
Horace  Hawes. 

Endorsed  : 

Filed  18th  Oct-,  1849. 


275 
EXHIBIT  R.,  No.  6. 

To  James  Alexander  Forbes  : 

Sir  : — You  will  please  take  notice  that  on  the  twentieth  day  of  Octo- 
ber 1849  at  the  hour  of  10  A.  M.,  I  shall  apply  to  the  Juzgado  of  the 
pueblo  of  San  Jose*  to  Richard  M.  May  Judge  of  the  First  Instance 
in  the  District  of  San  Jose*  Upper  California  to  supersede  and  annul 
a  certain  order  issued  by  K.  H.  Dimmick  1st  Alcalde  dated  the  8th 
day  of  August  1849  requiring  all  persons  having  possession  of  the 
mine  of  New  Almaden  and  its  appurtenances,  to  deliver  the  same  to 
James  Alexander  Forbes  ;  on  account  of  the  illegality  of  the  same. 
Your  ob't  s't, 

ROBERT  WALKINSHAW. 

San  Jose*,  Oct.  19, 1849. 

Endorsed : 

Executed  this  notice  by  delivering  a  copy  of  it  with  J.  A.  Forbes, 
on  the  20th  of  Oct.  1849,  at  6  o'clock. 

R.  C.  KEYES,  Sheriff. 


["  R.  No.  7."] 


In  the  Court  of  1st  Instance,    ) 
Pueblo  de  San  Jose,  12.  M.  May,  Judge.  \ 

Robert  Walkinshaw,      \ 

vs.  > 

Jas.  Alex.  Forbes.        ) 

James  Alexander  Forbes,  Defendant  in  the  above  suit,  being  duly 
sworn,  deposes  and  says  : 

That  the  allegations  in  plaintiff's  petition  and  affidavit  that  he 
(Plff )  is  and  has  been  in  peaceable  possession  of  the  mine  and  ores 
of  New  Almaden,  since  the  month  of  April  1847,  and  that  affiant  is 
threatening  illegally  to  interrupt  his  said  possession,  are  wholly  false. 

That,  true  it  is  that,  in  the  said  month,  the  Plaintiff  took  possession 
of  the  said  mine  by  virtue  of  a  power  of  attoiiiey  given  him  as  agent 
by  Alexander  Forbes  of  the  city  of  Tepic,  Mexico,  the  principal 
owner  and  sole  "  Habilitador"  or  authorised  contractor  for  the  work- 
ing of  the  said  mine,  and  that  the  said  Plaintiff,  by  virtue  alone  rf 
the  said  power,  continued  to  work  the  said  mine  as  the  agent  of  the 
said  Alex.  Forbes  and  his  name,  until  the  month  of  August,  1849. 

That,  on  April  23d  1849,  the  said  Alexander  Forbes,  by  public 


276 

and  notarial  act  passed  at  the  said  city  of  Tepic,  revoked  all  authority 
previously  given  to  the  Plaintiff,  as  his  attorney  in  fact,  to  work  the 
said  mine ;  &  empowered  affiant  as  his  agent,  to  take  possession  of, 
administer  and  elaborate  the  same.  That,  on  the  arrival  of  affiant,  about 
August  10th  1849,  he  exhibited  the  said  notarial  act  &  power  to  the 
Plaintiff  in  the  presence  of  K.  H.  Dimmick,  Esq.,  (now  at  San  Fran- 
cisco) and  the  Plaintiff  acknowledged  the  same  to  be  correct,  and 
that  said  Alex.  Forbes  had  full  power  to  execute  the  same ;  and  that 
the  Plaintiff  thereupon  or  immediately  after,  in  acknowledgment  of 
the  revocation  of  his  powers,  voluntarily,  and  peaceably  delivered  to 
affiant  the  full,  legal,  and  actual  possession  of  said  mine  and  its  ap- 
purtenances. 

That  this  affiant,  by  virtue  of  the  power  of  attorney  aforesaid,  re- 
mained in  peaceable,  public  and  uninterrupted  possession  of  the  said  mine 
and  appurtenances,  and  continued  working  the  same  with  the  knowledge 
and  consent  of  the  Plaintiff,  until  Sept.  25th  1849,  when  the  said 
plaintiff,  without  any  notice  or  citation  whatever  to  this  affiant, 
obtained  an  order  from  the  Court  of  1st  Instance  of  San  Jose  de- 
claring him,  the  said  Plaintiff,  to  be  the  legal  possessor  of  the  said 
mine,  and  ordering  this  affiant  to  refrain  from  interfering  with  the  pos- 
session thereof  without  license  from  the  said  Plaintiff.  That  affiant 
protested  against  the  proceeding  as  unjust  and  ex  parte ;  whereupon, 
on  Oct.  8th  1849,  the  said  Court,  without  any  notice  to  affiant,  issued 
another  order  commanding  the  sheriff  to  remove  this  affiant  and  the 
persons  in  his  employment  from  the  said  mine,  and  to  arrest  thi3 
affiant.  That  this  affiant  being  thus  forcibly  and  illegally  ousted  from 
his  possession,  presented  a  petition  to  Peter  H.  Burnet,  President  of 
the  Superior  Tribunal,  praying  that  the  said  illegal  orders  should  be 
suspended,  and  affiant  placed  in  his  former  possession  ;  whereupon  the 
smd  Burnett  ordered  the  R.  M.  May,  judge  of  1st  Instance,  to  place 
this  affiant  in  his  former  posession  of  the  said  mine,  ores  &c;  and 
that  the  case  should  remain  in  this  situation,  that  is,  that  affiant 
shoud  have  full  and  peaceable  possession  thereof  as  formerly,  until 
the  appeal  taken  by  affiant  from  the  said  illegal  orders  should  be  de- 
cided by  the  court  above.  That  the  said  R.  M.  May,  issued  his 
order,  on  the  19th  day  of  October,  commanding  the  sheriff  to  place 
affiant  in  possession,  in  accordance  with  the  said  order ;  but  that,  on 
the  18th,  and,  as  affiant  is  informed,  on  the  20th  of  Oct.,  the  said 
May  issued  a  counter  order,  in  direct  disobedience  and  entire  reversal 
of  the  order  of  Judge  Burnet,  whereby  he  again  recognised  the  said 
Walkinshaw  as  the  actual  possessor  of  the  said  mine  and  appurtenan- 
ces, and  ordered  this  affiant,  without  citation,  notice,  or  hearing  what- 
ever, to  refrain  from  interfering  with  the  said  mines  without  the 
license  of  the  said  Waikinshaw,  until  the  final  decision  of  this  suit ; 
thereby  changing  and  reversing  a   situation   ordered  to  remain  the 


277 

same  by  Judge  Burnet,  until  the  decision  of  the  appeal.  That  this 
suit  is  between  the  same  parties,  brought  upon  the  same  allegations, 
contemplates  the  same  object,  and  is  accompanied  by  the  same  order, 
as  that  upon  which  the  two  first  orders  were  issued  and  counter- 
manded by  Judge  Burnet,  and  which  is  now  pending  in  the  superior 
court  on  the  appeal  of  this  affiant. 

And  now  affiant  deposes  that  himself  as  part  owner,  and  the  par- 
ties for  whom  he  is  the  legal  agent,  will  suffer  great  and  irreparable 
injury  if  these  illegal  and  ex  parte  proceedings  be  continued.  That 
Horace  Hawes,  the  attorney  of  the  said  Walkinshaw  in  this  and  the 
aforesaid  suits,  and  pretending  to  act  therein  for  the  interest  of  his 
client,  denounced  the  said  mine  in  his  own  proper  name  on  Oct.  6th, 
1849  ;  thus  seeking  not  only  to  deprive  this  affiant  and  those  to  whom 
he  is  responsible  as  agent  of  all  right  and  title  thereto,  but  apparently 
striving  to  divest  his  own  client,  Walkenshaw,  of  his  entire  right  of 
ownership  therein.  That  this  denouncement  by]  said  Hawes,  made 
with  the  knowledge  and  connivance  of  his  client,  who  now  owns  but 
two  shares  in  the  said  mine,  and  accompanied  by  statements  the  most 
false  and  proceedings  the  most  arbitrary,  has  induced  this  affiant  to 
believe  that  a  fraudulent  conspiracy  exists  between  the  said  Hawes 
and  Walkinshaw,  with  others,  to  deprive  this  affiant  and  those  for 
whom  he  is  acting  as  agent  of  their  just  rights  of  ownership  in  and 
to  the  said  mines ;  and  that  it  is  to  effect  this  fraud  and  conspiracy 
that  the  said  Walkinshaw  and  his  attorney  are  attempting  to  oust  this 
affiant  in  this  arbitrary  and  illegal  manner.  Of  the  truth  of  all  which 
this  affiant  most  solemnly  swears. 

And  affiant  further  deposes  and  Fays  that  the  bond  given  by  the 
Plaintiff,  and  which  pretends  to  secure  this  affiant  against  all  damage, 
is  wholly  insufficient.  That  it  is  signed  by,  as  affiant  believes,  an  ir- 
responsible foreigner  who  is  not  and  does  not  claim  to  be  a  citizen  of 
the  United  States,  who  has  no  property,  as  affiant  believes,  sufficient 
to  secure  the*  amount  of  the  bond.  Nor  does  this  affiant  believe  his 
principal  to  possess  that  solvency  necessary  to  secure  him  against  the 
probable  injury  resulting  from  the  order  aforesaid. 

JAS.  ALEX.  FORBES. 

Sworn  to  and  subscribed  before  me,  this  20th  day  of  October  1849, 
at  San  Jose. 

H.  C.  MELONE, 
Clerk  of  Court  First  Instance. 
Filed  Oct.  22d,  1849. 

Fee  $2  00 


i         278 
[R.  No.  8.] 

To   the   Hon.  Peter  H.  Burnett  Chief  Justioe  of  the  Superior   Tri- 
bunal in  and  for  the  territory  of  California  in  vacation. 

The  petition  of  James  Alexander  Forbes  of  the  Mission  of  Santa 
Clara  in  the  District  of  San  Jose*  respectfully  sheweth :  That  in 
pursuance  of  the  authority  delegated  to  your  Petitioner  by  Alexander 
Forbes  of  Tepic  Mexico  principal  owner  and  manager  of  the  mine 
hereafter  mentioned  your  petioner  on  the  10th  day  of  August  last 
received  from  Robert  Walkinshaw  (former  agent  appointed  by  the 
said  Alexander  Forbes)  possession  of  the  quicksilver  mine  known  by 
the  name  of  New  Almaden  in  the  District  of  San  Jose'  &  of  the  ores 
&  other  property  thereof,  &  that  on  the  thirteenth  day  of  said  month 
of  August  the  keys  of  the  buildings  attached  to  the  mine  were  deli- 
vered over  to  your  Petitioner's  Clerk  by  said  Walkinshaw  except  the 
key  of  a  certain  dwelling  house  thereon  in  which  the  family  of  said 
Walkinshaw  resided  and  which  your  Petitioner  authorised  him  tempo- 
rarily to  retain  possession. 

That  from  the  said  13th  day  of  August  until  the  time  when  your 
Petitioner  and  his  servants  were  disposessed  of  said  mine  and  ores 
under  the  orders  of  Judge  May  copies  of  which  are  hereunto  annexed 
your  Petitioner  was  in  the  full  free  and  unterrupted  possession  of  the 
said  mine  &  ores  and  exercised  exclusive  control  over  the  same. 

That  on  the  26th  day  of  September  last  your  petitioner  received  a 
copy  of  a  certain  peremptory  order  issued  by  Judge  May  of  which 
order  a  copy  is  hereto  annexed  marked  B. 

That  no  copy  of  the  petition  on  which  the  same  was  granted  was 
ever  served  on  your  petitioner  nor  any  notice  given  to  him  of  the  ap- 
plication for  such  order. 

That  your  Petitioner  thereupondrew  up  and  presented  a  protest 
complaining  of  the  ex  parte  character  of  the  proceeding  and  the  injus 
tice  of  the  order  &  exhibited  to  Judge  May  his  authority  as  agent. 

That  your  Petitioner  in  the  belief  that  he  had  done  all  that  was 
requisite  in  the  matter  and  that  the  order  aforesaid  was  illegal  and 
void  for  want  of  notice  continued  in  the  prosecution  of  his  business 
until  the  issuing  of  the  second  order  a  copy  of  which  is  hereunto  an- 
nexed marked  D,  which  was  also  issued  without  any  notice  of  an  ap- 
plication therefor  being  given  to  your  Petitioner. 

That  a  copy  of  the  second  order  was  received  by  your  Petitioner 
on  the  8th  day  of  October  inst.  and  he  thereupon  by' his  Counsel  on  the 
10th  and  11th  days  of  October  inst.  applied  to  Judge  May  on  the 
affidavits  marked  E  &  F  to  set  aside  the  said  orders  &  the  proceed- 
ings thereon,  &  that  after  hearing  Counsel  for  and  against  the  applica- 
tion it  was  denied. 


279 

Your  Petitioner  further  avers  that  no  bond  or  security  was  required 
or  taken  from  the  said  Walkinshaw  on  granting  either  of  the  ex  parte 
orders  hereinbefore  mentioned. 

That  copies  of  the  affidavits  petitions  orders  &  returns  of  the 
Sheriff  before  Judge  May  are  hereto  annexed  &  petitioner  prays  may 
be  taken  as  a  part  of  this  petition. 

That  your  Petitioner  on  the  15th  day  of  October  inst  upon  notice 
to  the  opposite  party  applied  to  said  Judge  May  to  grant  an  appeal 
to  the  Superior  Tribunal  from  the  said  two  orders  and  to  suspend  and 
supersede  all  proceedings  under  them  until  the  decision  of  such 
appeal,  &  offered  to  give  any  security  that  might  be  required,  which 
application  was  granted  as  to  the  appeal  but  denied  as  to  the  other 
relief  asked  for. 

And  your  Petitioner  further  sheweth  that  great  &  irreparable  in- 
jury will  be  sustained  as  well  by  your  Petitioner  as  by  the  other 
persons  interested  in  said  mine  should  such  orders  be  continued  in 
force  ;  &  that  said  Walkinshaw  has  no  right  to  the  possession  of  the 
said  mine  or  of  the  ores  thereof.  And  further  that  your  Petitioner 
is  a  part  owner  of  said  mine  and  ores. 

Your  Petitioner  therefore  prays  your  Honor  to  suspend  and  super- 
sede all  proceedings  under  the  said  orders  and  for  such  further  or 
such  other  relief  as  to  your  Honor  may  see  fit. 

And  your  Petitioner  will  ever  pray,  &c. 

JAS.  ALEX.  FORBES. 

Lor.  Cal.  \ 

Dist  San  Jose\  '49.  ]  ss* 

Sworn  and  subscribed  to  before  me  the  15th  Oct.  1849. 

R.  M.  MAY, 
1st  Dist  Alcalde  San  Jose*. 


[  A.  ] 

To  the  Honorable  Richard  M.  May    first  Alcalde    and  Judge   of 
first  Instance  in  and  for  the  District  of  San  Jose*. 

The  petition  of  Robert  Walkinshaw  of  said  District  respectfully 
sheweth  unto  your  Honor  that  he  is  and  has  been  from  the  month  of 
April  1847  hitherto  in  the  lawful  possession  of  the  Quicksilver  mine 
known  as  New  Almaden  situated  in  said  District  of  San  Jose*  that 
while  he  has  been  so  in  possession  by  virtue  of  his  own  right  and 
interest  and  the  consent  and  agreement  of  all  other  parties  interested 
therein  there  has  been  extracted  from  the  said  mine  a  large  quantity 
of  valuable  ore  under  his  direction,  which  still  remains  lying  at  the 
mouth  of  the  said  mine  with  the  exception  of  such  parts  and  parcels 


7 


280 


thereof  as  have  been  unlawfully  carried  away  as  hereinafter  men- 
tioned and  a  portion  which  has  been  beneficiated  on  the  premises  by 
your  petitioner. 

And  your  petitioner  further  showeth  unto  your  Honor  that  James 
Alexander  Forbes  of  said  District,  without  license  from  your  Peti- 
tioner and  contrary  to  his  expressed  prohibition,  and  as  your  Petitioner 
believes  without  any  legal  right  or  authority  is  attempting  to  interrupt 
your  Petitioner  in  the  possession  of  the  said  mine  and  ores  and  is  now 
in  the  act  by  means  of  servants  in  his  employ  and  under  his  orders  of 
taking  and  carrying  away  the  said  ore  and  without  the  due  and  legal 
process  prescribed  by  the  constitution  of  the  United  States  but  by 
force  and  violence  depriving  your  said  Petitioner  of  his  property  and 
possession.  Wherefore  your  petitioner  alledges  that  as  against  the 
said  James  Alexander  Forbes  he  has  the  legal  right  to  retain  posses- 
sion of  the  said  property  and  that  he  ought  not  to  be  deprived  of  his 
rights  without  the  adjudication  of  the  competent  courts  therein  and 
inasmuch  as  the  said  Courts  are  open  to  the  said  James  Alexander 
Forbes  if  he  will  submit  himself  to  their  judgment  prays  that  your 
honor  will  grant  a  peremptory  order  commanding  and  requiring  him 
and  all  other  persons  trespassing  as  aforesaid  upon  the  premises  to 
desist  from  so  doing  &  from  taking  or  carrying  away  any  ores  or  other 
property  therefrom  leaving  the  said  James  Alexander  Forbes  to  insti- 
tute and  prosecute  such  legal  proceedings  as  he  may  think  proper  and 
without  prejudice  to  the  rights  of  any  parties  interested  who  may 
seek  redress  in  the  manner  prescribed  by  law. 

And  your  Petitioner  as  in  duty  bound  will  ever  pray. 

ROBERT  WALKINSHAW. 

Territory  of  California, 
District  of  San  Jose. 

Robert  Walkinshaw  being  duly  sworn  deposeth  and  saith  that  the 
facts  set  forth  in  the  foregoing  petition  are  true  to  the  best  of  his 
knowledge  &  belief. 

ROBERT  WALKINSHAW. 
Sworn  and  subscribed  before  me  Sept.  25,  1849. 

R.  M.  MAY, 
Judge  of  first  Instance  &  Alcalde  of  San  Jose*. 


[B.  ] 

Territory  of  California, 
District  of  San  Jose. 

Robert  Walkinshaw  having  by  petition  verified  by  oath  represented 
to  the  undersigned  first  Alcalde  &  Judge  af  first  Instance  in  and  for 


281 

said  District  that  he  is  and  has  been  since  the  month  of  April  1847 
hitherto  in  lawful  and  peaceable  possession  of  the  Quicksilver  mine 
situated  in  said  District  known  by  the  name  of  New  Almaden  and 
that  he  still  claims  the  right  of  possession  thereunto  and  of  a  large 
quantity  of  ore  upon  the  premises,  and  having  also  made  complaint 
that  James  Alexander  Forbes  is  trespassing  upon  and  attempting  il- 
legally to  interrupt  his  possession  and  to  take  and  carry  away  the  said 
ores  praying  a  prohibition  in  this  behalf  against  the  said  Forbes  and 
all  other  persons  acting  under  his  order.  It  is  therefore  ordered  that 
the  said  James  Alexander  Forbes  and  all  persons  acting  under  his 
command  do  absolutely  desist  from  interrupting  or  in  any  manner 
entering  upon  the  possession  of  the  said  mine  without  licence  of  the 
said  Robert  Walkinshaw  and  from  carrying  away  any  part  of  the  said 
ores  or  other  property  pertaining  thereto  or  in  any  other  manner  tres- 
passing upon  the  property  in  said  Walkinshaw's  possession,  but  this 
order  is  without  prejudice  to  any  legal  rights  or  remedies  that  tne 
said  James  Alexander  Forbes  or  other  parties  interested  may  think 
proper  to  insist  upon  or  pursue  before  the  proper  Tribunal. 

R.  C.  Keyes  Sheriff  of  said  District  is  charged  with  the  execution 
of  this  order. 

Given  under  my  hand  and  seal  at  the  Pueblo  of  San  Jose"  in  said 
District  this  25th  day  of  Sept.  A.  D.  1849. 

R.  M.  MAY, 
Judge  of  first  Instance  &  Alcalde  of  San  Jose\ 
Attest : 

C.  T.  Ryland. 

James  W.  Weekes. 

(Sheriff's  Return.) 

Executed  this  order  by  leaving  a  correct  copy  thereof  with  the  wife 
of  the  said  James  Alexander  Forbes  the  defendant  in  the  Mission  of 
Santa  Clara  this  26th  day  of  September  Anno  Domini  1849. 

R.  C.  KEYS, 

Sheriff, 
By  J.  T.  RICHARDSON, 
D.  S. 

Executed  this  order  by  reading  &  explaining  to  the  men  in  the 
employ  of  James  A.  Forbes  they  refused  this  8th  day  of  October 
1849. 

R.  C.  KEYES, 

Sheriff. 


26 


282 

[C.  ] 

To  the   Honorable   Richard  M.  May  first  Alcalde  and  Judge  of  first 
Instance  for  the  District  of  San  Jose*. 

The  petition  of  Robert  Walkinshaw  respectfully  sheweth  that  on 
the  25th  instant  your  Honor  on  application  on  oath  of  this  petitioner 
issued  a  peremptory  order  to  James  Alexr  Forbes  and  all  persons 
acting  by  his  command  absolutely  to  desist  from  interrupting  or  in 
any  manner  entering  upon  the  possession  of  the  mine  of  New  Alma- 
den  without  licence  of  the  petitioner  and  from  carrying  away  any 
part  of  ore  lying  at  the  mouth  of  said  mine.  That  notwithstanding 
that  said  peremptory  order  was  formally  intimated  to  the  said  James 
A.  Forbes  and  his  servants  acting  under  his  orders  on  the  morning  of 
the  26th  inst.  and  was  moreover  on  the  same  day  intimated  to  him  by 
a  copy  of  said  order  being  served  on  him  by  the  officer  of  Court  at 
his  dwelling  house  he  the  said  James  A.  Forbes  continues  and  persists 
in  retaining  his  illegal  possession  of  said  mine  and  in  removing  there- 
from said  ore  with  greater  activity  even  than  heretofore  having  actu- 
ally removed  subsequent  to  the  intimation  of  said  peremptory  order, 
36  mules  load  and  that  in  utter  disregard  and  contempt  of  your 
Honor's  said  order. 

Wherefore  your  petitioner  thus  agrieved  and  deprived  of  the  pro- 
tection of  his  rights  to  be  afforded  him  by  his  application  and  your 
Honor's  order  consequent  thereon  prays  that  you  will  immediately 
cause  to  be  taken  against  the  said  James  A.  Forbes  and  all  persons 
acting  by  his  commands  such  legal  compulsory  measures  as  may  be 
necessary  to  enforce  due  &  instant  obedience  &  observance  of  your 
Honor's  said  order. 

And  farther  that  you  will  ordain  the  said  James  A.  Forbes  to  re- 
turn to  the  month  of  the  mine  all  the  ore  he  has  caused  to  be  removed 
therefrom  in  defiance  and  contempt  of  your  Honor's  order  aforesaid. 

And  your  petitioner  as  in  duty  bound  will  ever  pray. 

ROBERT  WALKINSHAW. 


[D.  ] 

Territory  of  California,    )  gg 
District  of  San  Jose,      j 

The  annexed  order  having  been  disobeyed  by  James  Alexander 
Forbes  and  those  acting  under  his  orders  as  appears  by  the  return  of 
the  Sheriff  verified  by  oath  you  are  hereby  commanded  to  put  the 


283 

same  into  full  force  and  execution  by  removing  from  the  premises  the 
said  James  Alexander  Forbes  and  all  other  persons  whomsoever 
acting  under  his  orders,  and  you  are  further  commanded  to  arrest  the 
said  James  Alexander  Forbes  and  all  other  persons  who  shall  further 
disobey  or  in  any  manner  interfere  with  or  hinder  the  execution  of  the 
said  order,  and  bring  them  forthwith  before  me  to  be  dealt  with  ac- 
cording to  law. 

Given  under  my  hand  this  9th  Oct  1849. 

R.  M.  MAY,  1st  Alcalde. 

Witnesses — John  T.  Richardson, 
Isaac  Branham. 

Oct.  9th,  1849. — Executed  in  full  excepting  the  arrest  of  J.  A. 
Forbes.  R.  C.  KEYES,  Sheriff. 


[E.] 

IN  THE  COURT  OF  FIRST  INSTANCE  IN  THE  DIST :  OF 
SAN  JOSE,  IN  THE  TERRITORY  OF  CALIFORNIA. 

Robert   Walkinshaw.  ) 

vs.  > 

James  Alex'r  Forbes.  ) 

Dist.  of  San  Jose,  ss. 

James  Alex  Forbes  being  duly  sworn  saith  that  as  agent  of  Alex'r 
Forbes  leading  &  managing  member  of  the  mining  company  of  New 
Almaden  he  was  placed  by  a  competent  or  legal  letter  or  power  of 
attorney  in  the  full  possession  of  all  the  mining  interest  of  said  Com- 
pany known  and  designated  by  the  name  of  New  Almaden  on  the 
10th  day  of  August  1849  by  the  former  agent  the  said  Robert  Wal- 
kinshaw in  the  hearing  and  presence  of  Judge  Dimmick  now  absent 
at  Monterey  as  a  member  of  the  territorial  convention  and  that  the 
keys  were  in  pursuance  of  the  general  possession  aforesaid  formally 
turned  over  to  him  or  to  his  clerk  on  the  13th  of  said  month  by  said 
Walkinshaw  thereby  recognizing  the  revocation  of  his  own  agency 
and  the  regular  and  legal  appointment  of  your  deponent  as  his  suc- 
cessor. 

Deponent  further  states  that  said  Walkinshaw  has  within  the  last 

few  days  in  contravention  of  his  former  voluntary  act  of  surrender 

as  aforesaid   caused  process  to  issue  from  this  Court  the  effect  of 

:hich  has  been  to  arrest  the  operatives  or  hands  interrupt  the  business 


284 

of  the  mine  and  create  a  state  of  confusion  perplexity  and  loss  to 
the  great  detriment  of  the  parties  interested  and  of  this  deponent. 

Deponent  further  states  that  from  the  said  tenth  day  of  August 
last  until  the  time  of  such  last  mentioned  interference  he  has  been  in 
the  full  free  and  uninterrupted  possession  of  the  mine  aforesaid  &  of 
the  ores  thereof  without  any  claim  disturbance  or  interference  of  the 
said  Robert  Walkinshaw  or  any  other  person. 

Deponent  further  avers  that  Judge  Dimmick  now  a  member  of  the 
Territorial  convention  as  aforesaid  and  absent  at  Monterey  was  pres- 
ent and  a  witness  to  the  acknowledgement  on  the  part  of  the  said 
Walkinshaw  of  all  the  material  facts  (viz)  the  validity  of  the  instru- 
ment giving  to  deponent  legal  right  and  authority  to  take  possession 
&  the  management  of  the  said  mine  and  his  the  said  Walkinshaw's 
voluntary  surrender  to  him. 

Deponent  further  saith  that  the  loss  arising  from  the  continuance  of 
the  provisions  and  prohibitions  contained  in  the  orders  heretofore  made 
on  the  petitions  of  said  Walkinshaw  would  be  great  &  irreparable — 
and  deponent  expressly  denies  that  at  the  time  of  the  presentation  of 
the  first  application  said  Walkinshaw  was  in  the  possession  of  the  said 
mine  and  ores  or  either  of  them. 

(Sd)  JAS.  ALEXR.  FORBES. 

Sworn  before  me  this  10th  day  of  October,  1849. 
Sworn  and  subscribed  to  before  me  this  11th  day  of  October,  1849. 
(Sd)  R.  M.  MAY,  1st  Alcalde  Dist.  San  Jose'. 


[F.  ] 

IN  THE  COURT  OF  FIRST  INSTANCE  OF  THE  DISTRICT 
OF  SAN  JOSE. 

Robert  Walkinshaw  J 

vs.  > 

James  Alexb.  Forbes  &  others.   ) 

District  of  San  Jose,  ss. 

Robert  Birnie  and  Ferdinand  Alden  of  the  said  District  being  duly 
and  severally  sworn  do  depose  and  say  and  each  of  them  for  himself 
doth  depose  and  say,  that  he  has  been  in  the  employment  of  the  de- 
fendant in  this  cause  at  the  New  Almaden  mine  from  the  fourteenth 
day  of  August  last  up  to  the  present  time — that  the  said  James  Alexr 
Forbes  has  during  the  whole  of  that  time  held  the  exclusive  possession 


285 

of  the  said  mine  and  of  the  ores  thereof  paying  the  workmen  and 
exercising  in  all  respects  exclusive  supervision  management  and  con- 
trol over  the  same — and  that  during  the  period  aforesaid  the  said 
Robert  Walkinshaw  has  not  had  possession  of  the  said  mine  or  of  the 
ores  thereof  or  any  control  over  the  same  nor  has  he  to  the  best  of 
deponents'  knowledge  claimed  or  pretended  to  control  govern  own  or 
possess  the  same  or  any  of  the  ores  thereof  nor  has  he  interfered  in 
the  management  thereof. 

(Sd)  ROBERT  BIRNIE. 

FERNANDO  ALDEN. 

Sworn  before  me  this  10th  day  of  October,  1849. 

Jurado  ante  mi  esta  dia  10  de  Octubre  de  1849. 

(Sd).  AGUSTIN  DESFORGES, 

Alcalde. 


To  Horace  Howes,  Esq.,  AtCy  for  It.  Walkinshaw. 

Sir  : — Please  to  take  notice  that  on  the  16th  day  of  October  inst. 
we  shall  move  before  the  Hon.  Peter  H.  Burnett  Chief  Justice  of  the 
Superior  Tribunal  at  his  chambers  in  the  Pueblo  de  San  Jose*  at  the 
hour  of  10  A.  M.  for  an  order  to  suspend  and  supercede  the  two 
orders  granted  on  the  petitions  of  Robert  Walkinshaw  within  men- 
tioned, until  the  decision  of  the  appeal  in  the  within  matter.  That 
such  motion  will  be  grounded  on  the  fact  that  such  orders  were 
granted  improperly  and  ex  parte  and  will  be  based  upon  a  petition  of 
Jas.  Alex.  Forbes,  of  which  the  within  is  a  copy  and  upon  papers  of 
which  the  within  are  copies. 

Yours,  &c, 
W.  H.  RUSSELL  &  A.  CAMPBELL, 

Att'ys  for  Jas.  Forbes* 
Oct.  15,  1849. 


United  States  op  America, 
Territory  op  California. 

The  foregoing  application,  based  upon  the  foregoing  papers,  having 
been  argued  by  counsel  for  both  parties,  before  the  undersigned,  in 
vacation,  on  the  16th  and  17th  days  of  October,  A.  D.,  1849 ;  and 
the  same  having  received  an  attentive  consideration :  It  is  therefore 
ordered,  that  the  Court  below  cause  all  proceedings  under  the  said 
two  orders  of  the  Court,  to  be  superceded ;  and  that  the  said  Court, 


286 

command  the  sheriff  to  place  the  said  James  Alexander  Forbes  in  the 
same  possession  of  the  mine,  ores,  and  other  property  belonging  to 
said  mine,  as  he,  the  said  Forbes,  had  before  the  execution  of  the  sec- 
ond order  issued  by  the  Court  below ;  and  that  the  case  remain  in  this 
situation,  until  the  same  can  be  heard  in  the  Court  above.  From 
which  order  the  said  Walkinshaw  by  his  counsel  prayed  an  appeal  to 
the  First  Bench  of  the  Superior  Tribunal,  which  was  refused  by  the 
Judge. 

Given  under  my  hand  this  17th  day  of  October,  A.  D.,  1849. 

PETER  H.   BURNETT, 
President  of  the  Superior  Tribunal  of  California. 


EXHIBIT  R.,  No.  9. 

appointment — james  w.  weeks  to  clemente  laquin. 

(Traced  Copy.) 

Juzgado  del  Pueblo  de  San  Jose 
De  Guadalupe. 

De  conformidad  con  el  pedimento  que  antecede  yo  al  infrascrito  Al- 
calde 1\  de  este  Jurisdiccion  con  dos  testigos  de  asistencia  a  falta  de 
Escribano  publico  pase  hoy  viente  uno  de  Enero  de  mil  ocho  cientos 
curente  y  ocho,  a  la  espresado  Mina  de  Nuevo  Almaden ;  que  no  hu- 
riendo  facultativo  del  Districto  nombre  a  Clemente  Laquin  Menero 
practica  para  examinar  el  estado  de  dicha  minas  lo  que  se  hallo  traba- 
jado  conforme  a  la  ordenanza  de  mineria  siendo  forme  las  respaldos  sus 
planes  y  obras  en  la  mejor  orden  y  tempios  de  tepatate  u  otra  estorta, 
de  manera  que  evita  toda  pelegro  a  los  operarios ;  y  a  conservar  la 
mina  en  buen  estado.  Y  huviendo  el  citado  perito  practicado  las  me- 
didas  y  demas  operaciones  nesesarias  para  determinar  el  rumbo  y  he- 
chada  de  la  veta  a  su  actual  profundidad  declara  ser  dicha  rumbo  de 
Nor  Oeste  y  Sud  Este  y  su  Echada  ser  Nordeste  y  que  excede  de 
varra  por  varra  ;  esto  es,  que  hace  con  el  orizonte  un  angulo  de  mas 
de  cuarenta  y  cinco  grados :  dando  a  los  interesados  derecho  a  la  cua- 
dra  de  dos  cientos  varras  segun  Titulo  VIII  Articulo  7,  de  la  orde- 
nanza. Y  considerando  que  se  trabaje  esto  mina  compania  concedo 
tambien  el  derecho  que  se  me  pide  de  cuatro  pertenencias  seguidas 
sobre  el  rumbo  de  la  espresado  veta  en  los  planes  de  la  mina  conforme 
a  la  ordenanza  Titulo  XI  Art0.  2.  Concedo  ademas  derecho  a  la  me- 
jara  de  Estacas  con  respeto  a  la  variasion  del  rumbo  de  la  veta  Segun 
Titulo  VIII  Art0.  11  de  la  ordenanza  y  Esto  en  la  orden  siguiente  : 


287 

Es  decir :  desde  la  baca  de  la  Mina  cincuenta  varras  hacia  el  Sur 
Oeste  y  ciento  cincuente  varras  acia  el  N.E  y  para  la  longitud  de  las 
cuatro  perteniencias  cien  varras  hacia  el  Sudeste  y  siete  cientos  varras 
hacia  el  Nor  Oeste  sobre  el  mismo  rumbo  de  la  veta  siendo  constante 
el  derecho  y  titulo  de  la  Mina  a  la  gracia  de  terreno  concedido  en  la 
original  acto  de  posesion. 

Practicadas  estas  delegencias,  ordene  el  citado  perito  procediera 
imediatamento  a  sacar  las  espresadas  medidas  y  fijar  en  los  estremos 
de  los  cuartro  perteniencias  y  en  cada  lado  de  la  cuadra  de  dos  cientas 
varras  los  Estacas  conforme  a  la  Ordenanza. 

Todo  lo  cual  se  hizo  en  presencia  mia  y  de  los  testigos  de  asistencia 
de  lo  que  doy  fe. 

JAMES  WEEKES, 

Alcalde, 


Recorder's  Office,  Santa  Clara  County, 
California,  July  27th,  A.  D.  185 1 . 

4 

I  hereby  certify  that  the  forgoing,  on  pages  1  and  2  of  this,  con- 
tains a  full,  true,  correct,  and  exact  traced  copy  of  an  instrument  now 
of  record  in  this  office,  and  recorded  in  Book  2  of  Deeds,  on  pages  41 
and  42. 

— > — .  j      "Witness  my  hand  and  official  seal,  at  office,  in  the  city  of 
seal  (  San  Jose*,  the  day  and  year  last  written. 

I  S.  A.  CLARK, 

County  Recorder. 
By  Geo.  M.  Yoell, 

Deputy. 


EXHIBIT  H.  H.,  No.  1. 

To  the  First  Alcalde  of  the  District  of  San  Jose,  Guadalupe  : 

Horace  Hawes,  native  of  the  State  of  New  York  now  residing  at 
San  Francisco,  District  of  San  Francisco  California,  being  a  citizen  of 
the  United  States  of  America  in  full  exercise  of  his  rights  appears 
before  you  as  by  law  entitled  and  with  all  due  formality  as  prescribed 
by  the  "  Ordinancas  de  Mineria"  (mining  laws,)  solemnly  denounces 
for  desertion  the  quicksilver  mine  situated  in  the  said  District  of  San 
Jose  Guadalupe,  and  in  the  lands  of  the  Rancho  of  Jose*  Reyes  Ber- 
reyza,  within  this  Jurisdiction  known  in  its  original  title  of  registry  as 
that  of  Santa  Clara,  and  now  by  the  name  of  New  Almaden  the  same 


288 

having  been  left  by  its  possessors  without  having  been  worked  for  four 
consecutive  months  and  by  which  act  itself  they  lost  all  right  to  the 
to  the  said  mine,  as  declared  by  Art.  13,  Tit.  9,  of  said  Ordinan- 
ces of  Mineria ;  of  which  mine  so  far  as  known,  the  last  possessors 
were  Andres  Castillero  a  citizen  of  Mexico,  Alexander  Forbes  a  Brit- 
ish subject,  resident  in  the  City  of  Tepic  in  the  Republic  of  Mexico, 
James  Alexander  Forbes  resident  at  Santa  Clara  within  this  jurisdic- 
tion, Robert  Walkinshaw  residing  at  the  said  mine,  Theodore  Robles 
and  Segundo  Robles  natives  of  California  residing  in  the  neighbor- 
hood of  the  Mission  of  Santa  Clara  within  this  Jurisdiction,  all  and 
each  of  the  said  individuals  according  to  the  rights  and  interests  they 
may  have  had  in  the  possession  of  said  mine  respectively  ;  all  of  whom 
may  you  be  pleased  to  cause  to  be  cited  for  their  respective  rights  and 
interests  aforesaid  in  conformity  to  Art.  8,  Tit.  6,  of  said  Ordi- 
nances, and  on  expiring  the  terms  assigned  and  the  publication  of  this 
denouncement,  to  proceed  in  the  as  prescribed  by  the  said  Ordinances, 
Art.  and  Tit.  first  above  cited. 

HORACE  HAWES. 

San  Jose,  6  Oct.,  1849. 

Done  in  the  presence  of  the  undersigned  First  Alcalde,  October 
6th,  1849. 

R.  M.  MAY,  First  Alcalde, 
District  San  Jose*. 

Subscribing  witnesses : 
H.  C.  Melone, 
John  T.  Richardson. 


Pueblo  de  San  Jose,  Oct.  6th,  1849. 
Being  presented  and  admitted  without  prejudice  to  any  third  party 
who  may  exhibit  a  better  right  let  notice  be  posted  in  the  places  ac- 
customed for  the  purpose  in  this  Jurisdiction  and  notices  be  given  to 
the  parties  interested  and  after  this  shall  be  done  the  further  decis- 
ion will  be  pronounced.  I  the  undersignad  Alcalde  of  this  Jurisdic- 
tion decide  and  order  this  to  be  done  and  sign  with  the  assisting  wit- 
nesses according  to  law. 

R.  M.  MAY,  1st  Alcalde 

Of  District  San  Jose*. 
Witnesses : 

H.  C.  Melone, 
James  F.  Reed. 

Filed  for  record  Oct.  10th,  1849. 

Recorded  in  Book  5,  pages  325  and  27  and  28. 


289 

The  cognizance  of  the  foregoing  proceedings  pertaining  to  the  Judge 
of  first  Instance  and  being  received  and  admitted  the  undersigned 
will  entertain  the  same  in  that  capacity. 

R.  M.  MAY,  1st  Alcalde 

And  Judge  of  1st  Instance. 
Oct.  22d,  1849. 


State  of  California, 
County  of  Santa  Clara. 


ss. 


I  John  B.  Hewson  County  Clerk  and  ex  officio  clerk  of  the  District 
Court  of  the  Third  Judicial  District  of  the  State  of  California  in  and 
for  Santa  Clara  County,  do  hereby  certify  the  foregoing  to  be  a  true 
and  correct  copy  of  an  original  paper  filed  in  the  1st  Alcalde's  Court 
for  the  District  of  San  Jose,  (in  the  present  County  of  Santa  Clara, 
aforesaid,)  in  the  matter  of  the  Denouncement  of  the  New  Almaden 
Quicksilver  Mines  for  desertion,  by  Horace  Hawes.  The  papers  and 
records  of  said  Alcalde's  Court  being  now  in  my  possession  as  Clerk  of 
the  aforesaid  District  Court. 

In  Testimony  Whereof,  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand,  and  affixed  the 
Seal  of  said  District  Court  this  24th  day  of  July,  A.  D.  1857. 

JOHN  B.  HEWSON, 

seal  J  Clerk. 


EXHIBIT  H.  H.,  No.  2. 
Territory  of  California, 


District  of  San  Jose. 

You  are  hereby  cited  to  be  and  appear  before  the  undersigned  first 
Alcalde  of  the  District  of  San  Jose*,  at  the  Jusgada  in  the  Pueblo  of 
San  Jose*  on  the  22d  day  of  October  1849  to  answer  to  the  de- 
nouncement for  desertion  of  the  Quicksilver  mine,  situated  in  said  Dis- 
trict, called  New  Almaden,  which  denouncement  has  been  duly  pre- 
sented by  Horace  Hawes,  conformably  to  Article  thirteen  in  Title  nine, 
and  article  eight,  Title  six  of  the  Ordinances  of  Mineria,  and  admit- 
ted without  prejudice,  according  to  the  said  ordinances  as  of  mineria, 
(mining  laws.) 

Given  under  my  hand  at  the  Pueblo  of  San  Jose*,  this  10th  day  of 
October  1849  in  presence  of  the  witnesses  who  have  subscribed  their 
names  hereunto. 

By  order  of  R.'  M.  MAY,  1st  Alcalde. 

H.  C.  MELONE,  Clerk. 

Witnesses :  John  T.  Richardson, 
Z.  Jones. 


390 

"  ENDORSEMENTS." 

I,  Robert  C.  Keyes  Sheriff  or  Commissario  of  the  Court  of  First 
Instance  of  San  Jose  do  certify  and  return  that  I  delivered  person- 
ally to  James  Alexander  Forbes,  Robert  Walkenshaw,  Segundino  Ro- 
bles,  and  to  each  of  them  individually  and  respectively  a  notice  or  ci- 
tation directed  to  them  respectively,  of  which  the  within  is  a  true 
copy,  ten  days  before  the  return  day  within  mentioned,  and  that  I  had 
placed  in  my  hands  for  service  at  the  same  time,  the  same  citations  for 
Alexander  Forbes  and  Andres  Castillero,  but  after  the  most  diligent 
inquiry  they  (said  A.  Forbes  and  Castillero)  could  not  be  found  and 
are  reputed  and  believed  to  be  at  this  time,  and  to  reside  out  of  the 
Territory  of  California,  and  that  I  sent  the  same  notice  to  Theodore 
Robles  by  his  brother  Segundine. 

Sworn  before  me,  Oct.  26, 1849. 

R.  C.  KEYES,  Sheriff. 

Sworn  and  subscribed  to  before  me,  this  the  26th  October,  1849. 

R.  M.  MAY, 
1st  Alcalde,  San  Jose*. 

Fees  of  the  Sheriff,  $16  75. 


State  of  California,     } 
County  of  Santa  Clara.  ]  SS* 

I  John  B.  Hewson  County  Clerk  and  ex  officio  clerk  of  the  Dis- 
trict Court  of  the  Third  Judicial  District  of  the  State  of  California,  in 
and  for  Santa  Clara  County,  do  hereby  certify  the  foregoing  to  be  a 
true  and  correct  copy  of  an  original  paper  filed  in  the  1st  Alcalde's 
Court  for  the  District  of  San  Jose'  (in  the  present  County  of  Santa 
Clara  aforesaid,)  in  the  matter  of  the  Denouncement  of  the  New  Al- 
maden  Quicksilver  Mines  for  desertion,  by  Horace  Haws.  The  pa- 
pers and  records  of  said  Alcalde's  Court  being  now  in  my  possession 
as  C.erk  of  the  aforesaid  District  Court. 

In  Testimony  Whereof  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  affixed  the 
seal  of  said  District  Court  this  23d  day  of  July,  A.  D.  1857. 

[seal.]  JOHN  B.  HEWSON, 

Clerk. 


291 
EXHIBIT  H.  H.  No.  3. 

BEFORE  THE  FIRST  ALCALDE    OF  THE  DISTRICT  OF 
SAN  JOSE,  GUADALUPE. 

The  answer  of  James  Alexander  Forbes  of  Santa  Clara,  and  Alex- 
ander Forbes  of  Tepic,  Mexico,  by  James  Alexander  Forbes  his 
Attorney  and  Agent,  to  the  denunciation  of  the  mine  known  by  the 
name  of  New  Almaden  in  the  District  of  San  Jose  filed  by  Horace 
Uawes. 

These  Respondents,  saving  and  reserving  to  themselves  the  right  of 
altering  amending  adding  to  and  changing  this  their  Answer  to  the 
aforesaid  denunciation,  and  also  specially  excepting  to  the  Jurisdiction 
of  this  Court  and  to  the  said  denunciation  by  reason  of  the  omission 
therein  of  the  statement  of  any  time  when  or  persons  by  whom  the 
said  mine  was  left  unworked,  of  the  distinguishing  land-marks  of  the 
place,  and  of  the  last  occupants  of  the  neighboring  mines  for  answer 
thereto  or  to  so  much  thereof  as  they  are  advised  it  is  maintained  to 
answer  unto  saith : 

That  the  said  Alexander  Forbes  is  the  owner  of  one-half  part  or  12 
shares  in  the  said  mine  and  its  appurtetances,  and  the  said  James  Al- 
ex. Forbes  is  the  owner  of  one  twelfth  part  or  two  shares  therein. 
That  the  said  Alexander  Forbes  has  a  contract  of  habilitacion  with  the 
other  owners  of  the  same  by  virtue  of  which  he  is  entitled  to  and  for 
a  long  time  past  has  exerciseed  exclusive  control  and  management  over 
said  mine  through  his  agents  and  attorneys  by  him  appointed  and 
that  the  said  James  Alex.  Forbes  is  his  present  managing  agent 
and  attorney  in  relation  thereto.  That  the  statement  contained  in  the 
said  denunciation  that  the  said  mine  has  not  been  worked  for  four 
consecutive  months  is  untrue.  That  this  Respondent,  James  Alex. 
Forbes  by  virtue  of  his  agency  received  the  possession  of  the  said 
mine  iand  its  appurtenances  about  the  tenth  day  of  August  last  and 
worked  the  same  with  great  industry  and  activity  until  the  ninth  day 
of  October  inst.,  when  this  respondent  was  forcibly  ejected  from  the 
possession  of  said  mine  and  its  appurtenances  under  color  of  a  certain 
ex  parte  order  made  by  the  Judge  of  first  Instance,  of  the  District  of 
San  Jose  on  the  petition  of  Robert  Walkinshaw  for  whom  the  said 
Horace  Hawes  acted  as  counsel  and  attorney,  in  said  matter,  which 
said  order  has  since  been  appealed  from  and  superceded. 

These  Respondents  further  aver  that  the  said  Horace  Hawes  has 
filed  the  said  denouncement  in  bad  faith  and  that  he  has  unjustly  con- 
spired with  Robert  Walkinshaw  therein  named  and  who  is  a  share- 
holder in  the  said  mine  for  the  purpose  of  defrauding  the  other  share- 
holders of  their  interest  in  said  mine  and  of  obtaining  possession  and 


292 

control  over  the  same.  That  in  order  to  accomplish  the  object  of  such 
conspiracy  the  said  Robert  Walkinshaw  falsely  and  fraudulently  pre- 
tending to  be  in  actual  possession  of  the  same  has  through  the  instru- 
mentality aid  and  connivance  of  the  said  Hawes  applied  for  and  ob- 
tained against  this  Respondent,  James  Alex'r.  Forbes  repeated  ex 
parte  orders  from  said  Judge  May,  for  the  delivery  of  possession  of 
.  said  mine  to  said  Walkinshaw.  That  the  said  Hawes  is  thus  ostensi- 
bly engaged  en  the  one  hand  in  vindicating  the  pretended  claims  of 
the  said  Walkinshaw  to  the  said  mine  and  on  the  other  in  endeavor- 
ing to  subvert  defeat,  and  annul  any  right  or  interest  he  claims  therein. 
And  these  respondents  aver  that  for  two  years  and  upwards  immedi- 
ately prior  to  the  10th  day  of  August  last  the  said  Walkinshaw  had 
charge  of  the  said  mine  the  ores  and  other  property  thereof,  and  that 
if  there  was  any  neglect  in  regard  to  the  working  thereof  it  was  the 
neglect  of  said  Walkinshaw  who  is  now  conspiring  with  said  Hawes  to 
profit  thereby  to  the  great  injury  of  these  respondents  and  of  the 
other  persons  interested  in  said  mine. 

JAS.  ALEX.  FORBES,  in  person. 

ALEX.  FORBES, 
By  his  Agent  and  Attorney,  Jas.  Alex.  Forbes. 

Filed,  Oct.  22d,  1849. 


State  of  Califoknia, 
County  of  Santa  Clara. 

I,  Jno.  B.  Hewson  County  Clerk  and  ex  officio  clerk  of  the  District 
Court  of  the  Third  Judicial  District  of  the  State  of  California,  in  and 
for  Santa  Clara  County,  do  hereby  certify  the  foregoing  to  be  a  true 
and  correct  copy  of  an  original  paper  filed  in  the  1st  Alcalde's  Court 
for  the  District  of  San  Jose,  (in  the  present  county  of  Santa  Clara, 
aforesaid)  in  the  matter  of  the  Denouncement  of  the  New  Almaden 
Quicksilver  Mines  for  desertion,  by  Horace  Hawes,  the  papers  and 
records  of  said  Alcalde's  Court  being  now  in  my  possession  as  Clerk  of 
the  afaresaid  District  Court. 

, N         In  Testimomy  Whereof,  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand, 

and  affixed  the  seal  of  said  District  Court,  this  12th  day 

SEAL.     ' 


^  an 

J  of  August,  A.  D.  1857 

Jl 

By  Levi  P.  Peck,  Deputy 


JOHN  B.  HEWSON,  Clerk. 


293 

EXHIBIT  H.  H.,  No.  4. 

Territory  of  California, 

District  of  San  Jose. 

To  James  Alexander  Forbes  and  Alexander  Forbes :  You  are  here- 
by notified  that  I  shall  attend  at  the  Jusgada  in  the  Pueblo  de  San 
Jose  on  the  12th  instant  for  the  purpose  of  hearing  proof  concerning 
the  denouncement  by  Horace  Hawes  of  the  Quicksilver  Mine  called 
New  Almaden  situated  in  said  District  of  San  Jose,  when  and  where 
you  can  attend  if  you  wish  to  do  so. 

Given  under  my  hand  this  3d  day  of  November,  1849. 

JOHN  T.  RICHARDSON, 
Judge  of  First  Instance. 

Attest :  H.  C.  Melone,  Clerk. 

Delivered  a  true  copy  of  the  within  James  A.  Forbes  on  this  day 
8th  November  1849. 

H.  C.  MELONE. 

State  of  California, 


Country  of  Santa  Clara.  ' 

I  Jno.  B.  Hewson  County  Clerk  and  ex  officio  clerk  of  the  Dis- 
trict Court  of  the  Third  Judicial  District  of  the  State  of  California  in  and 
for  Santa  Clara  County,  do  hereby  certify  the  foregoing  to  be  a  true  and 
correct  copy  of  an  original  paper  filed  in  the  1st  Alcalde's  Court  for  the 
District  of  San  Jose  (in  the  present  County  of  Santa  Clara  aforesaid) 
in  the  matter  of  the  Denouncement  of  the  New  Almaden  Quicksilver 
mines  for  desertion,  by  Horace  Hawes,  the  papers  and  records  of  said 
Alcalde's  Court  being  now  in  my  possession  as  Clerk  of  the  aforesaid 
District  Court. 

^ N         In  Testimony  Whereof  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand, 

f  ^  and  affixed  the  Seal  of  said  District  Court  this  12th  day 

(,  SEAL*  J  of  August,  A.  D.  1857. 

v '  JOHN  B.  HEWSON,  Clerk. 

By  Levi  P.  Peok,  Deputy. 

EXHIBIT  H.  H.  No.  5. 

lo  the  Judge  of  First  Instance  of  the  District  of  San  Jose  : 

In  the  Matter  of  the  Denouncement  of  the  Mine  of  New 
«  Almaden. 

Horace  Hawes  the  Denouncer  of  said  Mine,  represents  to  your 
Honor,  that  on  yesterday  was  completed  the  publication  of  the  notices 


294 

to  absent  owners,  as  required  by  the  mining  laws  and  that  one  of 
those  who  lives  within  the  district  has  appeared  and  put  in  his  answer. 
Furthermore  that  the  said  Hawes  has  been  prevented  until  to-day  from 
being  present  within  this  District,  in  the  first  place  by  sickness,  and 
also  by  the  most  urgent  and  necessary  public  business,  he  being  the 
Prefect  of  the  District  of  San  Francisco.  May  it  please  your  Honor 
therefore  to  postpone  and  fix  the  day  for  taking  the  proofs  in  this  case 
until  Monday  the  26th  day  of  November  instant  to  be  continued  from 
day  to  day  as  long  as  may  be  necessary. 

To  the  truth  of  which  facts  as  above  stated  and  that  his  application 
is  not  made  from  malice,  your  petitioner  solemnly  swears  to  the  best 
of  his  knowledge. 

HORACE  HAWES. 

San  Jose  Nov.  12th,  1849. 

Filed  12th  Nov.,  1849. 

State  of  California, 
County  of  Santa  Clara. 

I,  Jno.  B.  Hewson,  County  Clerk  and  ex  officio  Clerk  of  the  Dis- 
trict Court  of  the  Third  Judicial  District  of  the  State  of  California,  in 
and  for  Santa  Clara  County,  do  hereby  certify  the  foregoing  to  be  a 
true  and  correct  copy  of  an  original  paper  filed  in  the  1st  Alcaldes 
Court  for  the  District  of  San  Jose  (in  the  present  County  of  Santa 
Clara  aforesaid)  in  the  matter  of  the  Denouncement  of  the  New 
Almaden  Quicksilver  Mines  for  desertion,  by  Horace  Hawes. 

The  papers  and  records  of  said  Alcaldes  Court  being  now  in  my 
possession,  as  clerk  of  the  aforesaid  District  Court. 

^      In  Testimony  Whereof,  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and 

seal  |  affixed  the  Seal  of  said  District  Court,  this  23d  day  of  July, 

J  A.  D.,  1857. 

JNO.   B.    HEWSON,  Clerk. 
By  Levi  P.  Peck,  Deputy. 


EXHIBIT  H.  H.  No.  6. 

Court  of  First  Instance, 
Pueblo  de  San  Jose. 

Horace  Hawes  :  In  the  matter  of  the  denouncement  of  the 
Mine  of  New  Almaden. 

Jas.  Alex.  Forbes,  in  his  own  name  and  in  that  of  the  other  Stock- 
holders of  said  mine  comes  into  Court  and,  in  addition  to  the  answer 


295 

and  exceptions  filed  in  said  suit,  more  especially  excepts,  that  this 
Court  has  no  jurisdiction  to  try  the  said  cause  either  as  1st  Alcalde 
or  Court  of  First  Instance,  ratione  materiae. 

Wherefore  he  prays  that  the  same  may  be  dismissed,  and  for  gen- 
eral relief  &c. 

J.   M.  JONES, 
Att'y  for  Defendants. 
Filed  Nov.  12th,  1849. 

State  of  California, 
County  of  Santa  Clara. 

I  Jno.  B.  Hewson,  County  Clerk,  and  ex  officio  Clerk  of  the  Dis- 
trict Court  of  the  Third  Judicial  District  of  the  State  of  California,  in 
and  for  Santa  Clara  County,  do  hereby  certify  the  foregoing  to  be  a 
true  and  correct  copy  of  an  original  paper  filed  in  the  1st  Alcaldes 
Court  for  the  District  of  San  Jose*  (in  the  present  County  of  Santa 
Clara  aforesaid)  in  the  matter  of  the  Denouncement  of  the  New 
Almaden  Quicksilver  Mines  for  desertion,  by  Horace  Hawes.  The 
papers  and  records  of  said  Alcaldes  Court  being  now  in  my  possession 
as  Clerk  of  the  aforesaid  District  Court. 

t ^      In  Testimony  Whereof,  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and 

]  seal  [  affixed  the  Seal  of  said  District  Court,  this  23d  day  of  July, 

I J  A.  D.,  1857.  *  V 

JNO.   B.   HEWSON,  Clerk. 
By  Levi  P.  Peck,  Deputy. 


EXHIBIT  H.  H.  No.  7. 

Horace  Hawes  ) 

vs.  > 

James  A.  Forbes  and  others.  ) 

November  12th,  1849. 
R.  C.  Keyes  sworn  on  the  part  of  James  A.  Forbes  states  that  he 
believes  the  value  of  the  mine  of  New  Almaden  greatly  exceeds  one 
hundred  thousand  dollars. 

Robert  Birnie  sworn,  states  that  he  believes  the  value  of  the  mine 
of  New  Almaden  to  be  over  one  million  of  dollars. 

ROBERT  BIRNIE. 

Subscribed  and  sworn  to  before  me  12th  Nov.,  1849. 

H.  C.  Melone,  Clerk  Court  first  Instance. 
Filed  12th  Nov.,  1849. 


296 

State  of  Califoknia, 


County  op  Santa  Clara.  { 

I  Jno.  B.  Hewson  County  Clerk,  and  ex  officio  Clerk  of  the  Dis- 
trict Court  of  the  Third  Judicial  District  of  the  State  of  California  in 
and  for  Santa  Clara  County,  do  hereby  certify  the  foregoing  to  be  a 
true  and  correct  copy  of  an  original  paper  filed  in  the  1st  Alcaldes 
Court  for  the  District  of  San  Jose  (in  the  present  County  of  Santa 
Clara  aforesaid)  in  the  matter  of  the  Denouncement  of  the  New 
Almaden  Quicksilver  Mines  for  desertion,  by  Horace  Hawes  :  The 
papers  and  records  of  said  Alcalde's  Court  being  now  in  my  possession 
as  Clerk  of  the  aforesaid  District  Court. 

St .  n  In  Testimony  Whereof,  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and 
seal  [  affixed  the  Seal  of  said  District  Court,  this  23d  day  of  July, 
>  A.  D.,  1857. 

JNO.   B.  HEWSON,  Clerk. 
By  Levi  P.  Peck,  Deputy. 


EXHIBIT  H.  H.  No.  8. 

I,  H.  C.  Melone,  Clerk  of  the  Court  of  First  Instance  in  and  for 
the  District  of  San  Jose*,  do  certify,  that  notices  or  Edicts  of  which  the 
within  and  annexed  marked  A.  and  B.  are  true  copies  written  in  Eng- 
lish and  Spanish,  and  signed  by  the  Judge  of  First  Instance  and  Clerk 
of  said  Court,  were  conspicuously  posted  upon  the  doors  of  the  Cath- 
olic Churches  in  the  Pueblo  of  San  Jose  and  Mission  of  Santa  Clara 
within  said  District  on  three  successive  Sundays,  beginning  on  Sun- 
day Oct.  28  1849,  and  ending  Sunday  Nov.  11th,  1849,  each 
notice  or  Edict  so  posted  and  published  having  the  corresponding  num- 
ber and  date  ;  and  that  the  like  notice  in  Spanish  with  one  in  English 
of  which  the  annexed  marked  C  is  a  true  copy  were  conspicuously 
posted  and  affixed  upon  the  door  of  the  Juzgado  or  Court  Room  in 
the  Pueblo  of  San  Jose  from  the  27th  day  of  October  1849,  to  the 
12th  day  of  November  1849,  inclusive  all  of  which  is  declared  and 
certified  upon  oath. 

H.   C.  MELONE. 

Sworn  and  subscribed  before  me  Nov.  —  1849. 

James  C.  CoNnoy,  First  Alcalde 

of  San  Jose. 


297 
A. 

NOTICE. 

Juzgado  of  First  Instance  of  the  Pueblo  of  San  JosS. 

The  undersigned  Judge  of  First  Instance  makes  known  to  the 
Public,  that  the  Quicksilver  mine  situated  in  this  Jurisdiction,  known 
by  the  name  of  New  Almaden,  has  been  denounced  for  desertion,  in 
order  that  all  parties  interested  may  appear  and  defend  their  rights, 
within  the  time  prescribed  by  law. 

This  is  the  First  Edict  published  this  28th  day  of  Oct.,  1849. 


B. 

•      ANUNCIO. 

Juzgado  de  Primera  Instancia  de  la  ciudad  de  San  JosS, 

El  Juez  que  subscribe,  pone  en  conocimiento  del  publico,  que  la 
mina  conocida  por  el  Nuevo  Almaden,  ha  sido  denunciado,  y  aunque 
algunos  de  los  poseedores  han  sido  citados  otros  son  ausentes  y  se  les 
cita  por  Edictos  para  su  comparecencia  conforme  manda  la  ordenanza 
vigente. 

Es  este  Primer  Edicto  hoy  28  de  Octubre  de  1849. 


C. 

PROCLAMATION. 

Juzgado  -of  the  District  of  San  JosS, 

Pueblo  op  San  Jose,  Oct.  23d,  1849. 
The  Quicksilver  mine  situated  in  the  District  of  San  Jose  known 
and  designated  in  its  original  act  of  registry  as  that  of  Santa  Clara, 
and  now  known  by  the  name  of  New  Almaden,  has  been  denounced 
for  desertion  according  to  the  ordinances  of  Mineria  (Mining  Laws.) 
Some  of  the  parties  have  appeared,  some  have  not.  All  persons 
interested  are  hereby  warned  to  appear  before  the  Judge  of  First 
Instance,  to  defend  against  the  said  denouncement,  if  they  think 
proper  so  to  do. 

R.  M.  MAY,  Judge  First  Instance. 
H.  C.  Melone,  Clerk. 
27 


298 
State  of  California, 


County  of  Santa  Clara.  f 

I,  John  B.  Hewson,  County  Clerk,  and  ex  officio  Clerk  of  the  Dis- 
trict Court  of  the  Third  Judicial  District  of  the  State  of  California,  in 
and  for  Santa  Clara  County,  do  hereby  certify  the  foregoing  to  be  a 
true  and  correct  copy  of  an  original  paper  filed  in  the  First  Alcalde's 
Court  for  the  District  of  San  Jose*  (in  the  present  County  of  Santa 
Clara  aforesaid,)  in  the  matter  of  the  Denouncement  of  the  New 
Almaden  Quicksilver  Mines  for  desertion  by  Horace  Hawes.  The 
papers  and  records  of  said  Alcalde's  Court,  being  now  in  my  posses- 
sion, as  Clerk  of  the  aforesaid  District  Court. 

x      In  Testimony  Whereof,,  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and 

seal  {  affixed  the  Seal  of  said  District  Court,  this  the  15th  day  of 

>  August,  A.  D.,  1857. 

JNO.   B.   HEWSON,  Clerk. 


EXHIBIT  H.  H.   No.   9. 

In  the  Matter  of  the  Denouncement  of  the  Mine  of  New 
Almaden,  by  Horace  Hawes. 

The  defendants  in  the  above  case  excepted  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
1st  Alcalde  and  Judge  of  1st  Instance  because  the  ordinance  of 
mines  establishes  a  special  and  exclusive  jurisdiction  in  another  Court, 
and  provides  that  in  default  of  such  Court  the  party  shall  go  before 
the  Court  of  the  nearest  Territory  having  such  jurisdiction. 

J.   M.   JONES, 
Att'y  for  Defendants. 
Filed  15th  Nov.,  1849. 

State  of  California,     ) 
County  of  Santa  Clara.  ) 

I  Jno.  B.  Hewson  County  Clerk  and  ex  officio  Clerk  of  the  Dis- 
trict Court  of  the  Third  Judicial  District  of  the  State  of  California,  in 
and  for  Santa  Clara  County,  do  hereby  certify  the  foregoing  to  be  a 
true  and  correct  copy  of  an  original  paper  filed  in  the  1st  Alcalde's 
Court  for  the  District  of  San  Jose  (in  the  present  County  of  Santa 
Clara  aforesaid,)  in  the  matter  of  the  Denouncement  of  the  New 
Almaden  Quicksilver  Mines  for  desertion,  by  Horace  Hawes.  The 
papers  and  records  of  said  Alcalde's  Court  being  now  in  my  posses- 
sion as  Clerk  of  the  aforesaid  District. 


299 

In  Testimony  Whereof,  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and 
seal  [  affixed  the  Seal  of  said  District  Court  this  23d  day  of  July, 
A.  D.,  1857. 

JNO.   B.   HEWSON,  Clerk. 
By  Levi  P.  Peck,  Deputy. 


EXHIBIT  H.  H.,  No.  10. 

In  the  Matter  of  the  Denouncement  of  the  Quicksilver  Mine 
called  New  Almaden,  situated  in  the  District  of  San  Jose. 

Horace  Hawes  the  Denouncer  of  said  mine  comes  in  his  proper 
person  and  representing  that  his  denouncement  has  been  duly  present- 
ed and  admitted  according  to  law  and  that  the  Citations  of  the  parties 
and  publication  of  the  notices  to  absent  possessors  have  all  been  made 
and  completed  in  exact  conformity  with  the  laws  of  the  land  as  will 
appear  by  reference  to  the  Records  and  proceedings  in  the  cause  and 
averring  further  that  the  former  owners  or  possessors  of  said  mine  have 
in  every  essential  particular  failed  to  comply  with  the  conditions  under 
which  they  first  obtained  possession  of  said  mine,  whereby  they  have 
lost  all  right  thereto,  and  furthermore,  that  by  reason  of  the  insuffi- 
cient registry  and  non-compliance  originally  with  the  requisites  pre- 
scribed by  law  they  the  said  former  owners  and  claimants  defendants 
in  these  proceedings,  never  acquired  any  title  whatever  to  said  mine, 
all  of  which  facts  the  said  Horace  Hawes  now  stands  ready  here  in 
Court  with  the  witnesses,  records,  and  documents  offering  to  prove 
and  substantiate  in  due  form  of  law,  but  the  Judge  of  First  Instance 
for  the  time  being  contrary  to  the  orders  heretofore  made  and  entered 
of  record,  refusing  to  permit  the  said  evidence  to  be  given,  the  said 
Horace  Hawes  does  hereby  solemnly  protest  against  such  refusal  and 
that  having  done  all  in  his  power  to  establish  the  right,  but  being  pre- 
vented from  proceeding  further,  he  the  said  Horace  Hawes  or  any 
other  parties  if  there  be  any,  interested  in  the  just  and  legal  termina- 
tion of  the  proceedings  shall  not  be  prejudiced  by  the  refusal  above 
mentioned,  the  said  Horace  Hawes  solemnly  declaring  that  the 
claim  agaisnt  the  possessors  of  said  mine  is  not  in  any  manner  aban- 
doned but  that  it  will  be  in  future  insisted  on  and  prosecuted  together 
with  any  and  all  rights  and  advantages  that  may  have  been  gained  or 
may  result  from  the  proceedings  had  in  the  said  Denouncement. 

HORACE  HAWES. 

Witness  :  C.  T.  Ryland.  Nov.  15th,  1849. 

J.    C.    CoNROY. 


300 

State  of  California, 


County  of  Santa  Clara 

I,  Jno.  B  Hewson  County  Clerk  and  ex  officio  Clerk  of  the  District 
Court  of  the  Third  Judicial  District  of  the  State  of  California  in  and 
for  Santa  Clara  County,  do  hereby  certify  the  foregoing  to  be  a  true 
and  correct  copy  of  an  original  paper  filed  in  the  1st  Alcalde's  Court 
for  the  District  of  San  Jose'  (in  the  present  county  of  Santa  Clara 
ajoresaid)  in  the  matter  of  the  Denouncement  of  the  New  Almaden 
Quicksilver  Mines  for  desertion,  by  Horace  Hawes,  the  papers  and 
records  of  said  Alcalde's  Court  being  now  in  my  possession  as  Clerk 
of  the  aforesaid  District  Court. 

In  Testimony  Whereof,  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  affixed  the 
Seal  of  said  District  Court  this  12th  day  of  August  A.  D.  1857. 

, JNO.  B.  HEWSON,  Clerk, 

(  o        )  By  Levi  P.  Peck,  Deputy. 


EXHIBIT  H.  H.,  No.  16. 

IN   THE   1st  ALCALDE'S  COURT  OR  COURT  OF  1st  IN- 
STANCE FOR  THE  DISTRICT  OF  SAN  JOSE. 

In  the  Matter  of  the  Denouncement  of  the  Mine  of  New 

Almaden. 

Horace  Haws, 

vs. 
J.  A.  Forbes, 
&  others, 

In  this  case  the  parties  appeared  by  their  counsel  on  the  12th  Nov. 
1849,  and  the  Defendants  excepted  to  the  jurisdiction  of  this  Court, 
natione  materia,  either  as  Alcalde  or  Judge  of  First  Instance  on 
the  ground  that  exclusive  Jurisdiction  was  given  by  the  Ordinances  of 
Mines  and  another  Tribunal.  The  Court  adjorn  over  to  the  15th 
inst.,  when  the  parties  came  into  Court  and  Plaintiff  moved  the  Court 
to  require  the  Defendants  or  some  one  authorized  for  them  to  state 
the  ground  of  their  exceptions  in  writing,  whereupon  the  Defendants 
filed  the  following,  viz,  In  the  matter  of  the  denouncement  of  the 
mine  of  New  Almaden  by  Horace  Hawes. 


301 

The  defendants  in  the  above  case  excepted  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
1st  Alcalde  and  Judge  of  1st  Instance  because  the  Ordinances  of 
mines  establishes  a  special  and  exclusive  Jurisdiction  in  another  Court, 
and  provides  that  in  default  of  such  Court  the  party  shall  go  before 
the  Court  of  the  nearest  Territory  having  such  Jurisdiction. 

J.  M.  JONES,  Atty  for  Def  ts. 

By  reference  to  the  translation  of  the  Ordinance  of  Mines,  certified 
by  the  Interpreter  the  following  provisions  seem  to  me  to  be  clearly 
established. 

1st.  That  the  act  or  decree  of  1842  in  title  10,  which  treats  of  the 
Administration  of  Justice  in  matters  pertaining  to  mines,  a  Court  of 
First  Instance  is  established  with  exclusive  Jurisdiction  over  all  such  mat- 
ters, composed  of  three  Territorial  deputies,  whose  functions,  political 
and  Judicial  were  the  same  as  those  of  the  Courts  of  Mines,  established 
by  the  ancient  Ordinance. 

2d.  That  the  Courts  of  Mines  established  by  the  ancient  Ordinance 
are  declared  to  possess  exclusive  Jurisdiction  of  discoveries  denounce- 
ments and  desertions  &c.  of  mines. 

3d.  That  he  who  discovered  a  mine  or  denounced  it  for  abandon- 
ment, could  only  do  so  by  the  proper  writing  presented  to  the  Court  of 
of  Mines  of  the  Territory  and  in  default  of  such  Court  the  denounce- 
ment should  be  made  before  that  of  the  nearest  Territory. 

These  Ordinances,  upon  whose  validity  the  Plaintiff  himself  relies, 
have  thus  established  an  exclusive  Jurisdiction  over  the  matter  in  con- 
test in  a  special  tribunal  and  provided  for  the  case,  where  no  such  tri- 
bunal existed  in  the  Territory.  This  exclusive  Jurisdiction  vested  in 
one  Court  and  was  an  (in  the  opinion  of  the  Court,)  an  absolute  pro- 
hibition of  the  exercise  of  that  Jurisdiction  by  any  other,  and  it  seems 
this  Court  has  no  more  right  to  claim  such  jurisdiction  in  the  absence 
of  the  special  tribunal  than  the  Court  of  the  Alcalde  of  the  2d  or  of 
the  3d  Instance. 

It  is  therefore  considered  by  the  Court  that  this  suit  be  dismissed 
at  the  costs  of  the  plaintiffs  for  want  of  Jurisdiction,  in  conformity  to 
the  Laws  of  mining  over  the  subject  matter,  at  the  same  time  Plaintiff 
asked  for  an  appeal  which  was  granted  in  open  Court.  November  15 
1849. 

Attest :  H.  C.  MELONE,  Clerk. 

State  of  California, 


County  of  Santa  Clara. 


I  John  B.  Hewson   County  Clerk,  and  ex  officio  Clerk  of  the  Dis- 
trict Court  of  the  Third  Judicial  District  of  the  State  of  California, 


302 

in  and  for  Santa  Clara  County,  do  hereby  certify  the  foregoing  to  be 
a  true  and  correct  transcript  of  the  original  entry  on  the  Records  of 
the  1st  Alcalde's  Court  or  Court  of  First  Instance  for  the  District  of 
San  Jose',  (in  the  present  county  of  Santa  Clara  aforesaid,)  in  the 
matter  of  the  Denouncement  of  the  New  Almaden  Quicksilver  Mines 
for  desertion,  by  Horace  Haws,  as  appears  on  the  records  of  said 
Court,  the  papers  and  Records  of  said  Court  being  now  in  my  posses- 
sion as  Clerk  of  the  aforesaid  District  Court. 

In  Testimony  Whereof,  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  affixed  the 
Seal  of  said  District  Court  thie  12th  day  of  August,  A.  D.  1857. 

JNO.  B.  HEWSON,  Clerk. 
\  Seal. 


EXHIBIT  H.  H.,  No.  12. 

S.    JUEZ. 

Es  la  question  de  presente,  qe  el  S.  Juez  de  la  instancia  no  tiene 
jurisdicion  o  qe  ni  es  competente  en  los  negocios  de  mineria  mi  opinion 
fundada  es  del  sigte  modo. 

Mejico  constituida  en  republica  el  ano  de  24  declar6  soberanias  cada 
estado  terminaba  sus  cuestiones  en  los  trales  qe  se  crio  ;  asi  es  qe  el 
Tral  Real,  sumenio,  de  qe  ablar  las  ordenanzas  concluyo"  desde  la  fecha 
indicada. 

Los  estados  en  uso  de  su  soberania  adoptaron,  lo  qe  mejor  les  pere- 
ci6,  unos,  que  no  pasaron  de  cinco  (entre  veinte  y  cuatro)  dejaron  los 
Trates  de  mineria,  es  decir  los  diputaciones,  o  Jusgados  de  primera  in- 
stancia, y  los  otros  poco  despues  fueron  modificado  de  tal  modo,  qe  con- 
cluyeron  con  las  diputaciones. 

El  mismo  Supremo   gn0  con  facultades  estraordinarias   estableci6 
Jusgados  de  otra  especie,  en  el  ano  de  cuarenta  y 
lo  que,  no  tuvo  efecto,  o  no  se  practic6. 

En  el  gno.  central,  o  vaser  Tacubaya,  el  gno.  decretola  abolicion  de 
los  Trales  de  mineria,  y  en  consecuencia  los  Jueses  de  la  insta  que 
daron  expeclitos  pa.  denuncios  asi  como  los  Alcaldes  a  prevencion  pa. 
registros  ;  mas  vuelta  la  federacion,  las  estados  podia  disponer  lo  qc. 
mas  conveinera,  y  casi  ninguno  adopto  el  sistema  de  diputaciones  qe. 
previene  la  ordenanza,  mas  en  consecuencia  con  la  constitucion  g'ral 
qe.  daba  la  soberania  a  cada  estado  ;  pa.  consigte.  los  trates  cstableci- 
dos  en  la  ordenanza  en  nada  eran  necessarios,  y  quedaron  los  Jueses 
comunes,  con  la  Jurisdiccion  .privativa  de  ordenanza  pa.  qe.  asi  se  les 


303 

declaraba,  y  por  qe.  a  falta  del  Juez  privilegiado  ha  de  haber  Jues,  y 
este  es  el  Juez  comun,  el  Juez  de  primera  insta. 

Mas  suponiendo  qe.  solo  los  Trales  de  Mineria  conociera  por  disposi- 
cion  de  los  estados,  o  departamentos  de  la  Republica  Mejicana,  Califor- 
nia, ni  como  departament0.  ni  como  estado  designo  Tral  de  Mineria, 
y  en  seraijante  caso  debe  occurrirse  al  Tral,  comun  es  decir  al  Alcalde 
pa.  un  registro  al  Juez  de  primera  insta.  pa.  un  denuncio  en  virtud  de 
su  autoridad  en  lo  contencioso. 

Decir  qe.  no  hay  autoridad  en  el  estado  de  California  (como  es  su 
categoria  constit1.)  es  ridiculo  ablandose  precisamte.  de  un  denuncio,  en 
el  qe.  pr.  titulo  de  registro,  conocio  un  Alcalde,  pr  qe ;  si  su  autori- 
dad Cast6  pa.  registrar,  en  calidad  de  autoridad  comun  el  Jues  de  la. 
inst\  debe  conocer  y  determinar,  pa.  qe.  sin  agrabiar  al  estado  de  Cal- 
ifornia autoridad  debe  haber  pa.  decidir  una  contienda,  y  tal  autoridad 
debe  serlo  solo  el  Jues  de  primera  insta. 

Suponer  6  querer  qe.  la  ordenanza  tenga  Valides  en  el  supletorio  de 
Tral.  de  mineria  siendo  California  de  estados  unidos,  donde  no  se  co- 
nocen  reglamentos  de  mineria,  seria  tanto  como  decir  qe.  la  question 
de  denuncio  fuera,  ventilarse  a  Mejico,  Peru,  &,  y  esto  ni  es  decente 
proponer  a  abogados  de  Norte  America. 

J.  LAYHI. 

Sworn  and  subscribed  before  me  the  15th  Nov.  1849. 

H.  C.  MELONE, 

Clerk  of  Court  of  First  Instance. 

Filed  Nov.  15, 1849. 

State  of  California,  ) 

County  of  Santa  Clara.  ]     ' 

I,  John  B.  Hewson,  County  Clerk  and  ex  officio  Clerk  of  the  Dis- 
trict Court  of  the  Third  Judicial  District  of  the  State  of  California,  in 
and  for  Santa  Clara  County,  do  hereby  certify  the  foregoing  to  be  a 
true  and  correct  copy  of  an  original  paper  filed  in  the  1st  Alcalde's 
Court  for  the  District  of  San  Jose  (in  the  present  county  of  Santa 
Clara  aforesaid)  in  the  matter  of  the  Denouncement  of  the  New  Al- 
maden  Quicksilver  Mines  for  desertion,  by  Horace  Hawes.  The  papers 
and  Records  of  said  Alcalde's  Court  being  now  in  my  possession  as 
Clerk  of  the  aforesaid  District  Court. 


304 

In  Testimony  whereof  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  affixed  th© 
Seal  of  said  District  Oourt  this  23d  day  of  July,  A.  D.  1857. 

■ JNQ.  B.  HEWSON, 

Seal    >  Clerk' 


EXHIBIT  H.  H.,  No.  13. 

The  laws  of  Mexico  from  the  date  of  the  treaty  between  that  coun- 
try and  the  United  States,  cease  in  their  operations  so  far  as  regards 
the  acquisition  of  public  lands,  and  also  soj-far  as  thosejlaws  conflict  with 
the  political  and  legal  system  of  the  U.  States.  Therefore  no  person 
can  acquire  a  Grant  of  public  lands,  and  as  a  matter  of  course  no 
person  can  dispute  the  titles  of  the  mines  of  New  Almaden  or  that  of 
Guadalupe. 

I  have  now  to  request  of  you  to  file  a  bill  in  Chancery  to  quiet 
title,  and  that  an  injunction  be  issued  against  those  individuals  who 
may  be  disposed  to  question  our  titles. 

J.  A.  FORBES. 
Santa  Clara,  16th  Nov.  1849. 


State  of  California, 
County  of  Santa  Clara. 


ss. 


I,  John  B.  Hewson,  County  Clerk  and  ex  officio  Clerk  of  the  Dis 
trict  Court  of  the  Third  Judicial  District  of  the  State  of  California,  in 
and  for  Santa  Clara  county,  do  hereby  certify  the  foregoing  to  be  a 
true  and  correct  copy  of  an  original  paper  filed  in  the  1st  Alcalde's 
Court  for  the  District  of  San  Jose  (in  the  present  county  of  Santa 
Clara  aforesaid  in  the  matter  of  the.  Denouncement  of  the  New  Al- 
maden Quicksilver  Mines  for  desertion,  by  Horace  Hawes.  The  papers 
and  records  of  said  Alcalde's  Court  being  now  in  my  possession  as 
Clerk  of  the  aforesaid  District  Court. 

In  Testimony  whereof  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  affixed  the 
Seal  of  said  District  Court  this  15th  day  of  August,  A.  D.  1857. 

JNO.  B.  HEWSON, 

a  )  Clerk. 

Seal 


305 

NOTICE. 

UNITED  STATES  DISTRICT  COURT. 

The  United  States  ) 

vs.  [  D.  C.  420. 

Andres  Castillero.  ) 

San  Francisco,  August  18, 1856. 
Gent  : 

You  are  hereby  requested  to  produce  the  original  paper  of  which  Ex- 
hibit "A,"  to  the  petition,  is  a  copy,  to  be  used  in  the  examination  of 
witnesses,  now  progressing  before  Specid  Commissioner  J.  Edgar 
Grymes,  Esq. 

Yours,  &c.    . 

P.  DELLA  TORRE, 

U.  S.  Attorney, 
Messrs.  Halleck,  Peachey  &  Billings, 

Attys.  for  Castillero. 


DEPOSITION  OF  JAMES  W.  WEEKES. 

The  United  States  ) 

vs.  > 

Andres  Castillero.  ) 

United  States  District  Court, 
Northern  District  of  California. 

San  Francisco,  August  18th,  1857. 
On  -this  day,  before  J.  Edgar  Grymes,  a  Commissioner  of  the 
United  States  for  the  Northern  District  of  California,  dnly  authorized 
to  administer  oaths,  &c.  &c,  came  James  W.  Weekes,  a  witness  pro- 
duced on  behalf  of  the  United  States  in  Case  No.  420,  being  an  ap- 
peal from  the  Board  of  Commissioners  to  ascertain  and  settle  the  pri- 
vate land  claims  in  the  State  of  California,  in  Case  No.  366  on  the 
the  Docket  of  the  said  Board  of  Commissioners,  and  was  duly  sworn 
and  testified  as  follows. 

Present: — United  States  District  Attorney,  represented  by  Mr. 
Edmund  Randolph  ;  and  Frederick  Billings,  Esq.,  for  claimant. 


306 

Questions  by  Edmund  Randolph,  Esq. 

1st  Ques. — What  is  your  name,  age  and  place'  of  residence  ? 

1st  Ans. — My  name  is  James  W.  Weekes,  45  years  old ;  I  reside 
in  Santa  Clara  County. 

2d  Ques — How  long  have  you  lived  in  California  ? 

2d  Ans.— Since  1831. 

3d  Ques. — Have  you  ever  held  any  office  in  California ;  if  yea, 
what,  when  and  where  ? 

3d  Ans. — I  was  Alcalde  in  1848,  in  San  Jose*. 

4th  Ques. — Have  you  testified  before  in  this  case  ? 

4th  Ans. — Yes,  sir. 

5th  Ques. — Counsel  for  the  United  States  here  shows  to  the  witness 
the  paper  produced  by  the  counsel  for  the  claimant  in  pursuance  of  a 
notice  issued  by  the  U.  S.  District  Attorney,  attached  to  this  deposi- 
tion, and  of  which]  paper  a  copy  marked  "  Exhibit  R.,  No.  2,"  is 
attached  to  this  deposition,  and  he  asked  the  witness  whether  he  ever 
saw  said  paper  before  ? 

5th  Ans. — -I  have  seen  it  before,  and  it  is  my  signature  written  on 
page  No.  9. 

6th  Ques. — What  writing  is  it  that  your  name  is  signed  to  ? 

6th  Ans. — It  is  a  certificate  in  Spanish,  which  being  translated,  is 
as  follows : 

"  Court  of  the  Justice  op  the  Peace, 
San  Jose   Guadalupe,  Upper  California. 

I  certify  in  due  form,  that  the  foregoing  is  a  faithful  copy,  made  to 
the  letter  from  its  original,  the  espediente  of  the  mine  of  Santa  Clara 
or  New  Alraaden,  which  exists  in  the  Archives  under  my  charge,  to 
which  I  refer.  And  in  testimony  whereof,  I  have  signed  this  twenti- 
eth day  of  January,  one  thousand,  eight  hundred  and  forty-eight." 

7th  Ques. — Was  this  espediente  in  the  archives  at  that  time  ? 

(Question  objected  to  by  claimant's  counsel  as  incompetent,  and  as 
tending  to  vary  or  impeach  the  official  certificate  of  the  witness.) 

7th  Ans. — This  is  a  copy  of  what  remained  in  the  archives  at  that 
time. 

8th  Ques. — Who  recorded  it  in  the  Book  ? 

8th  Ans.— Myself. 

9th  Ques. — Where  did  you  get  the  paper  from  which  you  recorded 
in  the  book  ? 

9th  Ans. — From  Mr.  James  Alexander  Forbes. 


307 

10th  Ques. — When  was  you  appointed  Alcalde  ? 

10th  Ans.— In  1848,  I  believe. 

11th  Ques. — Was  you  Alcalde  when  you  recorded  that  paper  in  the 
Book? 

11th  Ans.— Yes. 

12th  Ques. — When  you  say  that  you  got  that  paper  from  Mr. 
Forbes,  do  you  mean  to  say  that  he  brought  it  to  you  and  asked  you 
to  record  it  ? 

(Question  objected  to  as  leading.) 

12th  Ans.— Yes. 

13th  Ques. — Did  you  ever  see  more  than  one  Expediente  of  that 
mine  in  your  office  while  you  were  Alcalde  ? 

13th  Ans. — I  have  seen  this,  another  on  foolscap,  and  what  I 
recorded  in  the  book  from  this. 

14th  Ques. — Whether  the  paper  now  shown  you  is  a  copy  which 
you  made  from  the  Expediente  which  you  said  you  had  recorded  in 
the  book  ? 

14th  Ans. — This  was  made  by  Mr.  Forbes  and  copied  into  the 
book. 

15th  Ques. — When  was  it  that  you  first  saw  any  of  these  papers  of 
which  you  have  spoken  ? 

15th  Ans. — I  saw  the  first  book  when  Captain  Burton  was  Alcalde. 
That  was  the  book  on  foolscap  paper,  containing  the  first  denounce- 
ment of  the  mine  made  in  1845.  When  I  was  Alcalde  I  saw  them. 
This  one  I  copied  a  part  of.  Since  I  come  to  consider  it  I  cannot 
say  whether  it  was  the  possession  or  this  which  I  copied  in  a  book. 

16th  Ques. — What  possession  do  you  mean  ? 

16th  Ans. — The  possession  I  mean  is  what  I  have  already  testified 
to,  of  giving  Mr.  Forbes  possession  of  the  mine  of  New  Almaden,  in 
my  former  deposition. 

17  Ques. — Was  it  that  possession  that  you  copied  in  that  book  ? 

(Question  objected  to  as  leading.) 

17th  Ans. — I  believe  it  was.  Since  I  recollect,  I  believe  the 
whole  of  this  is  a  copy  of  the  foolscap  paper  book  which  is]  in  the 
archives  which  I  saw  when  Captain  Burton  was  Alcalde,  and  that  this 
is  all  made  from  it,  I  believe. 

18th  Ques. — The  witness  being  shown  the  original  document  from 
the  files  of  the  County  Recorder's  office  of  Santa  Clara  Co.,  and  pro- 
duced by  G.  M.  Yoell,  and  referred  to  in  his  deposition  of  to-day,  is 
asked  whether  this  is  the  foolscap  paper  book  from  which  the  paper  before 
him  is  a  copy,  and  to  the  certificate  to  which  his  name  appears. 

18th  Ans. — I  believe  this  is  the  one. 


308 

Examination  adjourned  until  to-morrow,  Wednesday,  August  19th, 
1857,  at  10  o'clock,  A.  M. 

Wednesday,  August  19th,  1857. 

Counsel  for  both  parties  present.     Examination  adjourned  to  Thurs- 
day, August  20th,  at  3  o'clock,  P.  M. 

J.  EDGAR  GRYMES, 

Commissioner  §c. 


Thursday,  August  20th,  3  o'clock,  P.  M. 
Counsel  for  respective  parties  present. 

19th  Ques. — Did  you  make  the  copy  yourself  that  you  signed  at 
the  request  of  James  Alexander  Forbes,  as  you  testified  ? 

19th  Ans. — I  did  not. 

20th  Ques. — Did  you  take  the  original  it  was  copied  from  and  com- 
pare this  paper  with  that  original  to  see  whether  it  was  correct  ? 

20th  Ans. — I  believe  I  did  not.    . 

21st  Ques. — What  made  you  sign  it,  then  ? 

21st  Ans. — I  considered  it  was  right,  that  it  was  a  true  copy  of  the 
original. 

22d  Ques. — What  made  you  consider  it  so  without  comparing  it  ? 

22d  Ans. — I  have  no  other  reason  than  that  I  believed  it  right. 

23d  Ques. — Do  you  mean  to  say  that  you  considered  it  so  because 
Mr.  Forbes  told  you  so,  and  brought  it  to  you  ? 

23d  Ans. — I  suspected  that  it  was  right  or  I  would  not  have 
Bigned  ;  not  particularly  because  he  brought  it. 

24th  Ques. — Did  Mr.  Forbes  bring  the  paper  already  written 
out,  or  did  he  write  it  in  your  office  ? 

24th  Ans. — I  do  not  recollect. 

25th  Ques. — When  he  brought  this  paper,  or  when  he  showed  you 
the  paper  which  you  have  signed,  did  he  show  you  any  other  paper  as 
the  original  from  which  this  was  copied  ? 

25th  Ans. — I  believe  not. 

26th  Ques. — Do  you  remember  where  you  were  when  you  signed 
this  paper  ? 

26th  Ans. — No,  sir,  I  do  not. 

27th  Ques. — The  day  after  this  paper  was  signed,  you  have  before 
testified  on  your  former  examination,  that  you  gave  a  possession  of 
the  quicksilver  mine  to  Mr.  Alexander  Forbes  ; — do  you  remember  at 
what  time  of  the  day  you  went  out  to  the  mine,  and  at  what  time  you 
returned  ? 


309 

(Objected  to  because  the  question  is  leading ;  because  the  witness 
has  not  stated  that  he  gave  the  possession  the  day  after  the  paper  was 
signed  ;  the  question  argumentative.) 

(Question  withdrawn  by  the  U.  S.  District  Attorney.) 

28th  Ques. — On  your  former  examination  in  this  case  you  testified 
that  on  the  21st  day  of  January,  1848,  which  is  the  day  immediately 
following  the  date  of  your  certificate  in  the  Expediente  of  the  mine, 
as  it  is  called,  now  before  you,  you  gave  possession  of  the  mine 
to  Mr.  Alex.  Forbes  ;  do  you  remember  at  what  time  of  the  day  you 
went  out  to  the  mine  to  give  to  Mr.  Alexander  Forbes  that  possession, 
and  about  what  time  you  returned  ? 

28th  Ans. — I  believe  I  left  San  Jose*  at  about  10  o'clock,  and  re- 
turned after  sunset. 

29th  Ques. — Were  there  any  papers  executed,  signed,  while  you 
were  at  the  mine ;  if  so,  what  were  they  ? 

29th  Ans. — None  to  my  recollection., 

30th  Ques. — Were  there  any  executed  that  night  when  you  re- 
turned ? 

30th  Ans. — No,  sir. 

31st  Ques. — Where  were  you  then  when  you  signed  the  act  of  pos- 
session to  Mr.  Alex.  Forbes  ? 

31st  Ans. — I  believe  I  signed  it  in  the  office. 

31d  Ques. — You  did  not  sign  it  before  you  went  to  the  mine,  I  sup- 
pose ? 

(Question  objected  to  as  leading.) 

32d  Ans. — No,  sir. 

33d  Ques. — When  did  you  sign  it  then  ? 

33d  Ans. — I  believe  I  signed  it  after.  I  have  no  recollection  when 
I  signed  it,  whether  it  was  on  that  day,  or  any  other  day  afterwards. 

34th  Ques. — Do  you  know  any  better  on  what  day  you  signed  this 
certificate,  "  R.,  No.  2,"  exactly  ? 

34th  Ans. — I  have  no  remembrance.  I  think  it  was  after  I  gave 
possession. 

35th  Ques. — Do  you  know  now  what  was  in  the  old  papers  in  your 
office  when  you  were  Alcalde  ? 

35th  Ans. — I  do  not  now  know  exactly  what  was  in  the  papers.  I 
know  that  the  writings  were  relative  to  the  mines ;  there  were  the 
denunciation  of  Castillero,  as  also  I  believe  there  was  a  possession  of 
Pico  attached  ;  I  believe  so,  but  am  not  certain,  it  is  so  long  ago. 

36th  Ques. — Did  or  did  not  Jas.  Alex.  Forbes  return  with  you  to 
the  mine  that  day  you  gave  possession  to  Mr.  Alexander  Forbes.  ? 


310 

36th  Ans. — He  did  not  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge. 
37th  Ques. — Do  you  know  what  time  he  returned  ? 
37th  Ans. — I  do  not.     I  think  he  returned  the  next  day,  but  I  am 
not  positive. 

Cross-Examination. 

38th  Ques. — Have  you  any  doubt  that  you  signed  your  certificate 
on  "  R.  No.  2,"  on  the  day  on  which  it  purports  to  be  figned  ? 

38th  Ans. — I  have.  The  papers  may  have  been  drawn  out  and 
dated  before  I  signed  them. 

39th  Ques. — Have  you  any  other  doubt  than  that  which  arises  from 
the  lapse  of  time,  so  that  you  cannot  distinctly  remember  particular 
occurrences  ? 

39th  Ans. — That  is  the  only  doubt  I  have. 

40th  Ques. — Is  it  not  your  belief  that  the  certificate  which  you 
signed,  was  signed  on  the  day  it  purports  to  be  signed,  and  was  true  ? 

40th  Ans. — I  believed  it  to  be  true,  but  I  have  no  recollection  of 
the  day  I  signed  it.  I  believe  it  to  be  true  and  signed  on  the  day  it 
purports  to  be. 

41st  Ques. — If  you  had  signed  papers  about  that  time,  would  you 
be  able  to  recollect  now  distinctly  the  days  on  which  you  had  signed 
them? 

41st  Ans. — I  could  not  positively. 

42d  Ques. — At  the  time  you  were  Alcalde  were  there  in  the  ar- 
chives an  expediente  or  little  book  relating  to  the  possession  of  the 
New  Almaden  Mine  ? 

42d  Ans. — Yes  sir.  The  possession  that  I  gave  was  copied  in  a 
book,  as  also  there  was  a  possession  of  Pico  in  another  which  has 
been  mentioned,  according  to  the  best  of  my  belief,  as  I  have  stated 
before. 

43d  Ques. — The  lilttle  book  relating  to  the  possession  of  the  mine 
which  you  say  you  saw  in  the  archives  when  Captain  Burton 
was  Alcalde,  was  that  in  your  possession  when  you  were  Alcalde  ? 

43d  Ans. — It  was. 

44th  Ques. — The  witness  being  shown  the  original  document  re- 
ferred to  in  question  10,  is  asked  if  that  is  the  book  which  he  saw  in 
the  archives  when  Capt.  Burton  was  Alcalde,  and  if  it  was  in  the 
archives  when  he  was  Alcalde. 

44th  Ans. — It  appears  to  me  to  be  the  one  ;  I  am  not  positive. 

Direct  Examination  Resumed. 

45th  Ques. — Do  you  remember  whether  in  that  old  book  that  was 
in  the  office  of  the  Alcalde  in  Burton's  and  your  time,  there  was  an 


311 

agreement  of  Partnership  between  Castillero,  Father  Real  and  the 
two  Robles  and  Genl.  Castro,  to  work  the  mine  ? 

45th  Ans. — I  have  no  recollection  of  that  matter.  It  appears  to 
me  that  I  have  seen  the  names,  but  I  have  no  recollection. 

46th  Ques. — Where  does  it  appear  to  you  that  you  saw  those 
names  in  writing  of  that  sort  ? 

46th  Ans. — I  think  I  have  read  them  in  the  documents  in  the  old 
book. 

47th  Ques. — Did  you  or  did  you  not  see  in  that  old  book  a  petition 
of  Genl.  Castro  about  that  mine  ? 

47th  Ans. — I  have  no  recollection.  I  may  have  seen.  I  cannot 
recollect  all  the  old  things  that  I  have  seen  in  books. 

48th  Ques. — To  whom  did  you  transfer  the  books  when  you  left  the 
Alcalde's  office  ? 

48th  Ans. — To  Charles  White,  who  is  now  dead. 

49th  Ques. — Did  Mr.  Forbes,  before  presenting  to  yon  the  copy 
which  you  signed,  ask  to  see  the  old  book  that  you  had  in  the  office  ? 

49th  Ans. — I  have  no  doubt  he  saw  it  before,  and  when  Capt. 
Burton  was  Alcalde. 

50th  Ques. — Do  you  mean  to  say  he  got  the  old  book  to  make  the 
copy  which  you  afterwards  signed  ? 

50th  Ans. — That  I  do  not  know.  It  is  my  opinion  that  he  drew  it 
from  the  same  book  ;  but  whether  he  drew  correctly  or  not  I  cannot 
say.  I  do  not  remember  that  he  asked  me  for  the  book.  I  have  no 
recollection  one  way  or  the  other.  I  have  that  opinion,  because  I 
believe  that  he  had  seen  the  book  before  and  in  Capt.  Burton's  time. 

51st  Ques.  Being  asked  what  were  his  habits  in  1848,  at  the  time 
he  was  Alcalde,  whether  he  was  a  teetotaller,  or  sometimes  took  too 
much  in  those  days  when  he  was  Alcalde  : — 

51st  Ans. — I  know  that  I  could  take  my  portion  the  same  as  a  great 
many  foreigners  could  in  those  days. 

JAMES  W.  WEEKS. 

Sworn  to  and  subscribed  before  me,  this  20th  day  of  August,  1857. 

J.  EDGAR  GRYMES, 
Special  Commissioner. 
Filed  August  29th,  1857. 

W.  H.  CHEVERS, 

Deputy. 


EXHIBIT  TO  DEPOSITION  OF  JAS.  W.  WEEKS. 

This  Exhibit,  R.  No.  2,  is  a  copy  of  the  document  referred  to  in 
Jas.  W.  Weeks'  deposition,  produced  by  counsel  for  the  claimants, 


312 

pursuant  to  notice  of  District  Attorney,  and  is  to  serve  in  place  of  the 
document  produced  by  said  attorneys,  which  is  returned  to  them. 

J.  EDGAR  GRYMES, 

Special  Commissioner. 


AftO  DE  1845. 

expediente  del  denuncio,  posesion,  y  c0mpania  de  la  mina  de 

tazogue  n0mbrada  santa  clara,  jurisdiccion  de  san 

Jose  Guadalupe,  en  la  Alta  California. 


Senor  Alcalde  de  1a.  Nominacion  : 

Andres  Castellero  Capn.  de  Caballeria  permanente,  y  residente 
hoy  en  este  Depart0.  Ante  la  notoria  justificacion  de  V.  hace  presente, 
que  habiendo  descubierto  una  veta  de  plata  con  ley  de  oro,  en  terreno 
del  Rancho  perteneciente  al  Sargento  retirado  de  la  compania  presidi- 
al  de  San  Franc0.  Jose  Reyes  Berreyesa,  y  queriendo  trabajarla  en 
Compa  suplico  a  V.  que  arreglado  a  la  ordenanza  de  mineria,  se  sirva 
de  fijar  rotulones  en  los  parajes  publicos  de  la  jurisdiccion  para  que 
llegado  el  tiempo  de  la  posesion  juridica  asegure  mi  derecho  segun  las 
leyes  de  la  materia. 

A.  V.  suplico  provea  de  conformidad,  en  lo  que  recibire*  merced  y 
justicia  :  advirtiendo  este  en  papel  comun  correspondiente. 

Pueblo  de  San  Jose  Guade.  NovDre.  veinte  y  dos  de  mil  ocho  cientos 
cuarenta  y  cinco. 

ANDRES  CASTILLERO. 

Es  copia  a  lo  que  me  remito  firmandola  con  dos  testigos  de  asis- 
tencia. 

En  el  Pueblo  de  San  Jose  Guadalupe  a  13  de  Enero  de  1846. 

PEDRO  CHABOLLA. 
De  asistencia  P.  Sainsevain. 
De  asa.  Jose  Sunol. 


Senor  Alcalde  de  1a  Nominacion  del   Pueblo  de   San  Jose 
Guadalupe : 

Andres  Castillero,  Capitan  permanente  de  Caballeria,  ante  la  no- 
toria justificacion  de  V.  comparesco  y  digo :  entablando  el  mineral  que 


#  313 

con  anterioridado  denuncio  a  ese  Juzgado,  he  sacado  a  mas  de  plata 
con  ley  de  oro  ;  Azogue  liquido,  en  presencia  de  algunos  concurentes 
que  podre*  citar  en  caso  oportuno.  Y  por  convenir  asi  a  mi  derecho  le 
he  de  merecer  a  V.  que  unido  al  escrito  del  denuncio  se  archive  esta 
presentacion  no  Yendo  en  papel  del  sello  por  no  haberlo. 

A.  V.  suplico  provea  de  conformidad :  en  lo  que  recibire  merced  y 
justicia. 

Sta  Clara  Dicbre.  3  de  1845. 

ANDRES  CASTILLERO. 

Es  copia  a  la  que  me  remito  firmandola  con  los  testigos  de  mi  asis- 
tencia. 

En  el  Pueblo  de  San  Jose*  Guadalupe  a  13  de  Enero  de  1846. 

PEDRO  CHABOLLA. 
De  asa.  P.  Sainsevain.     . 
De  asa.  Jose  Sunol. 

No  encontrandose  en  el  Departamento  de  California,  Diputacion  de 
mineria :  y  siendo  esta  la  unica  vez  desde  la  poblacion  de  Alta  Cali- 
fornia, que  se  trabaja  con  arreglo  a  las  leyes  un  mineral :  y  careciendo 
ademas  de  Juez  de  Letras  el  2°  distrito.  Yo  el  alcalde  de  la.  nomi- 
nacion,  C.  Antonio  Ma.  Pico,  he  venido  acompanado  de  dos  testigos 
para  actuar  por  receptoria,  a  falta  de  escribano  publico  que  no  lo  hay ; 
para  dar  posesion  juridica  de  la  mina  conocido  en  el  nombre  de  Santa 
Clara,  en  esta  jurisdiccion,  situada  en  el  Rancho  del  Sargento  retira- 
do  Jose  Reyes  Berreyesa ;  porque  habiendo  fenecido  el  tiempo  que 
seSala  la  ordenanza  de  mineria  para  deducir  su  accion  el  C.  D.  Andres 
Castillero,  y  que  otros  pudieran  a  legar  mejor  derecho,  desde  el  tiempo 
del  denuncio  a  la  ffia.  Ye  nanbrandose  dho.  mineral  con  abundancia 
de  metales  explotados,  el  pozo  hecho  con  las  reglas  del  arte  ;  y  produ- 
ciendo  la  elaboracion  de  la  mina,  abundancia  de  Azogue  liquido,  segun 
las  muestras  que  tiene  el  Juzgado  ;  y  estando  tan  recomendado  por  le- 
yes vigentes,  la  proteccion  de  un  articulo  tan  necesario  para  la  amal- 
gamacion  de  oro  y  plata  en  la  Republica,  he  venido  en  conceder  tres 
mil  varas  de  terreno  por  todos  rumbos,  a  reserva  de  lo  que  senale  la 
Ordenanza  General  de  mineria  por  ser  trabajada  en  compania,  de  lo  que 
doy  fe,  firmando  conmigo  los  testigos  que  dando  agregado  este  acto  de 
posesion  al  cumulo  del  expediente  que  queda  depositado  en  este  archi- 
vo  de  mi  cargo  no  yendo  en  papel  sellado  por  que  no  lo  hay  en  los  ter- 
minos  de  la  ley. 

Juzgado  de  San  Jose  de  Guadalupe  y  Diciembre  30  de  1845. 

ANTONIO  M\  PICO. 

De  asa.  Antonio  Sunol. 

De  as\  Jose  Noriega. 
28 


314 

He  recibido  del  Sr.  D.  Andres  Castillero  la  cantidad  de  veinte  y  cinco 
„    nr  pesos  por  cuenta  de  los  derechos  de  posesion  de  la  Mina  de 

Con 25  pesos.    \  r  ,,  .,    .      .    ,.      .      r,  , 

Azogue,  que  esta  en  esta  junsdiccion  de  mi  cargo,  nombra- 
da  de  Santa  Clara. 

Juzgado  de  San  Jose'  Guadalupe  Diciembre  30  de  1845. 

ANTONIO  M\  PICO. 


Escritura  de  compania  que  el  Sr.  Dn.  Andres  Castillero  Capn.  de 
Caballeria  permanente  celebra  con  el  Sor.  Comdte.  Gral  Dn.  Jose  Cas- 
tro, los  Sres  Secundino  Robles  y  Teodoro  Robles,  y  una  cesion  volun- 
taria  que  hacen  los  companeros  perpetuamente,  al  R.  P.  F.  Jose  Ma. 
del  Refugio  Suares  del  Real,  de  una  mina  de  plata,  oro,  y  azogue,  en 
el  Rancho  de  D.  Jose  Reyes  Berreyesa,  en  la  jurisdiccion  del  pueblo 
de  San  Josd  Guadalupe. 

Art0.  1. — El  Sor  Don  Andres  Castillero,  arreglandose  en  un  todo  a 
la  Ordenanza  de  Mineria,  hace  formal  compania  perpetuamente  con  los 
mencionados  Seiiores  en  esta  forma.  La  mitad  de  la  mina  que  es  de 
la  que  puede  disponer,  se  dividira  en  tres  acciones  en  esta  forma  cuatro 
barras  al  Sor  D.  Jose*  Castro,  cuatro  barras  a  los  Sres  Secundino  y 
Teodoro  Robles ;  y  las  otros  cuatro  barras  al  R.  P.  F.  Jose*  Ma.  R.  S. 
del  Real  en  clase  de  donacion  perpetua. 

Art0.  2. — Ninguno  de  los  companeros  podra  vender  o  enagenar  nin- 
guna  de  sus  acciones ;  de  manera  que  el  que  lo  verificare  perdera  ser 
derecho  quedando  reunido  en  los  demas  compane"ros. 

Art0.  3°. — Los  gastos  se  haran  en  proporcion  a  las  acciones  llevan- 
dose  una  cuenta  formal  por  un  contador,  que  se  pagara  del  fondo 
comun. 

Art0.  4°. — Arreglandose  en  un  todo  a  lo  que  previene  la  ordenanza 
de  mineria,  cualquiera  deferencia  se  resolvera  por  los  mismos  com- 
paneros. 

Art0.  5°. — Dirigera  las  labores  gastos  y  trabajos  Dn.  Andres  Castil- 
lero ;  y  en  su  defecto  el  R.  P.  F.  Jose  Ma.  R.  S.  del  Real. 

Art0.  6. — No  se  extraera  de  los  productos,  mas  cantidades  que  las 
que  necesiten  para  el  arreglo  de  la  negociacion,  hasta  que  se  arreglen 
los  trabajos :  y  cualquiera  cantidad  que  sea  ha  de  ser  con  consenti- 
miento  de  todos  los  companeros  hasta  que  este  arreglada  la  negocia- 
cion. 

Art0.  7®. — Estos  convenios  se  autorizardr  por  el  Sor  Prefecto  del 
2°.  distrito,  D.  Manuel  Castro  depositandose  el  documento  original  en 
el  archivo  del  partido ;  quedando  una  copia  certificada  por  S.  S.  inte- 
resados. 


315 

Mision  de  Santa  Clara  dos  de  Noviembre  de  mil  ocho  cientes  cua- 
renta  y  cinco. 

ANDRES  CASTILLERO. 

Por  el  Sr  Comdte.  Gra1.  Dn  Jose  Castro, 

ANDRES  CASTILLERO. 

F.  JOSE  M\  del  R.  S.  del  REAL. 

Por  los  Sres  Secundino  Robles  y  Teodoro  Robles. 

FRAN00.  ARCE. 

Es  copia  fiel  del  original  al  que  me  remito. 

Ste.  Clara  Diciembre  ocho  de  mil  ocho  cientos  cuarente  y  cinco. 

ANTONIO  M\  PICO. 

MAN\  CASTRO. 


Juzgado  de  Paz  del  Pueblo  ee  San  Jose 
Guadalupe,  Alta  California. 

Certifico  en  toda  forma  que  lo  que  antecede  es  copia  fiel  sacada  a 
letra  de  su  original  expediente  de  la  mina  de  la  mina  de  Sta  Clara  o 
nueva  Almaden  que  obra  en  el  archivo  de  mi  cargo  a  que  me  remito 
y  paro  su  debida  constancia  he  firmado  este  hoy,  veinte  de  Enero  de 
mil  ocho  cientos  cuarenta  y  ocho. 

JAMES  W.  WEEKES, 

Alcalde. 


British  Consulate  for  Californias, 
S.  Francisco. 

I  hereby  certify  that  the  signature  to  the  above  certificate,  is  the 
true  and  proper  hand  writing  of  the  person  it  represents,  and  that  it  is 
worthy  of  all  faith  and  credit. 

^      In  witness  whereof,  I  have  hereunto  placed  my  hand  and 

L.  S.  (  official  seal,  this  twenty-first  day  of  January,  one  thousand 

*  eight  hundred  and  forty-eight. 

JAMES  ALEX*.  FORBES, 

Vice  Consul. 


Jesus  Vegar  Escribano  Publico, 

Certifico  y  doy  fe  que  la  a  ultima  firma  que  presede  del  Senor  Vice 
consul  Don  James  Alejandro  Forbes  es  la  propia  que  dicho  Senor  usa 


316 

y  acorestumbra  constandome  asi  cuando  lo  conoci  a  su  tranata  en  esta 
Ciudad  para  la  Alta  California  por  varios  actos  que  practico  en  la  cosa 
de  los  Senores  Rarron,  Forbes  y  Compaiiia. 

Y  a  pedimento  de  los  mismos  Senores  signo  y  firmo  esta  constancia 
en  Tepic  a  quince  de  Marzo  de  mil  ochocientos  cincuenta. 

JESUS  VEJAR. 


El  Alcalde  1°.  Constitucional  y  Escribano  Publico  que  firmamos, 
Certificamos  y  damos  fe  que  el  Signo  y  firma  que  antecede  es  al  que 
usa  a  y  aconstumbra  el  Escribano  Don  Jesus  Vejar  en  todos  los  actos 
que  ante  el  pasan. 

Asi  lo  comprobamos  en  Tepic  a  quince  de  Marzo  de  mil  ochocientos 
cincuenta. 

LORET0.  CORONA. 

EUSEBIO  FERNANDEZ. 


Consulate  op  the 
United  States. 

I,  George  W.  P.  Bissell,  Consul  of  the  United  States  of  North 
America  for  this  district  hereby  certify  that  the  signatures  attached 
to  the  foregoing  Document  are  in  the  true  hand  writing  of  the  sub- 
scribers who  legally  hold  the  situations  therein  represented  and  are 
worthy  of  all  faith  and  credit. 

In  testimony  whereof  I  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  seal  of  office  this 
first  day  of  December  in  the  year  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and 
fifty,  in  the  city  of  Tepic. 

G.  W.  P.  BISSELL, 

XI,  S.  Consul. 


DEPOSITION   OF  FRANK  LEWIS. 

United  States  District  Court, 
Northern  District  of   California. 
The  United  States 

\ 

Andres  Castillero.  ) 

San  Francisco,  August  18th,  185T. 
On  this  day,  before  J.  Edgar  Grymes,  a  Special  Commissioner  and 
Referee  of  the  United  States  for  the  Northern  District  of  California, 


317 

duly  authorized  to  administer  oaths,  &c,  &c,  came  Frank  Lewis,  a 
witness  produced  on  behalf  of  the  United  States,  in  case  No.  420, 
being  an  appeal  from  the  Board  of  Commissioners  to  ascertain  and 
settle  the  private  land  claims  in  the  State  of  California,  in  case  No. 
366  on  the  docket  of  the  said  Board  of  Commissioners,  and  was  duly 
sworn  and  testified  as  follows. 

Present  : — U.  S.  Disk  Attorney,  represented  by  Edmund  Ran- 
dolph, Esq.,  and  Frederick  Billings  for  claimant. 

Questions  by  Edmund  Randolph,  Esq. 

1st  Ques. — What  is  your  name,  age,  present  occupation,  and  resi- 
dence ? 

1st  Ans. — My  name  is  Frank  Lewis,  29  years  old ;  I  am  clerking, 
and  reside  in  Santa  Cruz  County,  and  formerly  lived  in  Santa  Clara 
Cuunty. 

2d  Ques. — Have  you  ever  been  employed  in  a  public  office  ;  if  so, 
what  office,  and  at  what  time,  and  where  ? 

2d  Ans. — I  have  been  employed  in  the  Recorder's  office  as  Deputy, 
in  Santa  Clara  County.  From  about  the  15th  of  August,  1853,  to 
sometime  in  the  fall  of  1855. 

3d  Ques. — Are  you  the  same  person  who  testified  before  in  this 
case,  called  by  the  claimant  ? 

3d  Ans. — I  am. 

4th  Ques. — Will  you  look  at  the  deposition  of  Frank  Lewis  in 
Transcript  No.  366  in  this  case,  from  the  Board  of  Land  Commis- 
sioners, and  state  whether  that  is  your  deposition  as  you  testified  on 
your  former  examination  in  this  case  ? 

4th  Ans. — The  deposition  is  my  own  deposition,  as  nearly  as  I  can 
recollect,  having  compared  the  copy  in  the  transcript  with  the  original 
in  the  archie ves  of  the  Surveyor  General's  office,  and  I  found  two 
clerical  errors  in  the  transcript.  In  answer  to  2d  question,  the  year 
should  have  been  1853  in  place  of  1855,  as  the  year  when  I  went  in 
the  County  Recorder's  office.  In  the  3d  question  where  the  word 
"where"  is  written  in  the  transcript,  it  is  whence  in  the  original. 

5th  Ques. — In  your  3d  answer  upon  your  former  examination,  you 
state  that  you  there  had  before  you  a  certain  paper  endorsed  "  Pose- 
sion  de  la  Mina  de  Sta.  Clara,  Ano  de  1845,"  which  you  had  obtained 
from  the  files  of  the  County  Recorder's  office,  of  Santa  Clara  County. 
Please  to  state  whether  the  paper  that  you  now  hold  in  your  hands  is 
the  same  paper. 

5th  Ans. — It  is. 

6th  Ques. — In  the  answer  to  the  5th  question  on  your  former 
examination  you  state  that  a  paper  marked  "  A.,  P.  L.,"  which  you 


318 

then  held  before  you,  was  the  true  and  exact  copy  of  the  paper  en- 
dorsed, "  Posesion  de  la  Mina  de  Sta.  Clara,  Ano  de  1845,"  that  you 
had  carefully  compared  it  at  that  moment  with  the  original,  and  then 
held  both  original  and  copy  before  you.  You  will  now  please  state 
whether  the  paper  "A.,  P.  L.,"  to  which  you  then  referred,  is  to  be 
found  in  the  transcript  now  shown  you  in  this  case  from  the  Board  of 
Land  Commissioners. 

6th  Ans. — I  find  a  part  of  that  paper,  but  not  the  whole. 

7th  Ques. — Please  look  at  "  A.,  P.  L.,"  annexed  to  the  deposition 
of  Antonio  Suiiol,  on  page  125  of  the  transcript  in  this  case  from  the 
Board  of  Land  Commissioners,  and  compare  it  with  the  original  paper 
now  shown  you  from  the  original  archievs  from  the  Land  Commission, 
now  in  the  office  of  the  U.  S.  Surveyor  General,  and  say  whether  or 
not  they  are  the  same.  The  original  paper  above  referred  to  is 
marked  "A.,  P.  L.  Exhibit  to  the  deposition  of  Antonio  Sunol. 
March  19, 1855." 

7th  Ans. — They  are  the  same. 

8th  Ques. — Are  either  of  the  papers  which  you  have  just  com- 
pared, the  true  and  exact  copy  of  the  original  document  from  the  files 
of  the  County  Recorder,  which  on  your  former  examination  you  held 
in  your  hand  and  to  which  you  then  testified  ? 

8th  Ans. — They  are  not. 

9th  Ques. — In  what  do  they  differ  ? 

9th  Ans. — They  are  not  a  full  copy.  There  is  an  entire  document 
wanted  ;  the  first  document  being  a  petition  of  Jose*  Castro,  and  the 
marginal  note  signed  by  Pacheco  is  wanting.  That  is  the  only  differ- 
ence I  know  of. 

10th  Ques. — As  to  the  endorsements  which  appear  upon  the  ori- 
ginal from  the  Recorder's  office  from  Santa  Clara,  do  these  appear 
upon  either  of  the  copies  you  have  just  examined  ? 

10th  Ans. — They  do  not.  I  mean  the  following  endorsements' 
First.  "Filed  3  o'clock,  P.  M.,  18th  Jan'y,  1857.  J.  T.  Richardson, 
Recorder  S.  C.  C,"  on  first  leaf  of  the  outside  sheet.  Also,  "  Recorded 
(at  request  of  J.  Alex.  Forbes)  at  12  o'clock,  M.,  March  16th,  A. 
D.,  1855,  in  Book  G  of  Deeds,  on  pages  484,  485  and  486.  Records 
of  the  County  of  Santa  Clara." 

"  S.  A.  Clark,  County  Recorder,  by  F.  Lewis,  Deputy,"  on  the  last 
leaf  of  the  fourth  inside  sheet.  Also, — "Filed  February  25th,  A.  D., 
1853,  at  11  o'clock,  A.  M.  J.  M.  Murphy,  Recorder,  by  S.  0. 
Houghton,  Deputy."     That  is  on  the  last  leaf  of  the  outside  sheet. 

11th  Ques. — Were  those  endorsements  on  the  original  papers  at 
the  time  you  first  testified  ? 

11th  Ans. — They  were. 

12th  Ques. — Please  say  whether  those  endorsements  were  on  the 
copy  which  at  that  time  you  verified. 


319 

12th  Ans. — To  the  best  of  my  recollection  there  were  none  of  those 
endorsements  there.  JThe  copy  was  the  copy  of  the  body  of  the 
instrument. 

13th  Ques. — Please  explain  how  it  was  that  you  testified  on  your 
former  examination  that  the  copy,  which  you  then  verified,  was  a  true 
and  exact  copy  of  the  original,  upon  which  these  endorsements  appear, 
and  yet  were  not  contained  in  the  said  copy. 

13th  Ans. — I  did  not  consider  them  as  a  part  of  the  original  docu- 
ment. I  was  not  especially  asked  about  them.  One  of  them  being 
in  pencil,  I  would  not  have  certified  to  it  except  as  being  in  pencil, 
and  when  I  recorded  it  I  did  not  record  the  pencil  marks,  to  the  best 
of  my  recollection. 

14th  Ques. — Please  look  at  Exhibit  R.  No.  1  attached  to  the  depo- 
sition of  G.  M.  Yoell,  and  say  whether  that  exhibit  is  not  an  exact 
copy  of  the  original  paper  from  the  files  of  the  Recorder's  office  of 
Santa  Clara  County,  which  on  your  former  examination  you  held  in 
your  hands,  and  as  to  which  you  then  testified,  and  which  you  now 
have  before  you. 

14th  Ans. — It  is  a  traced  copy  of  the  original  paper,  containing 
also  the  endorsements  of  the  different  recorders,  also  the  following 
endorsements  on  the  outside  leaf  in  red  ink  the  words,  "  The  above  is 
written  in  pencil  S.  A.  Clark,  Recorder,  by  G.  M.  Yoell,  Deputy,"  and 
in  black  ink,  "  Posesion  de  la  Mina  de  Sta.  Clara,  Ano  de  1845." 
With  the  exception  of  those  endorsements  it  is  a  true  and  exact  copy 
of  the  papers  which  I  verified  before  the  Board  of  U.  S.  Land  Com- 
missioners. 

The  paper  was  recorded  by  the  Recorder  of  Santa  Clara  County, 
as  a  matter  of  prudence,  at  the  time  that  he  was  bringing  the  original 
to  San  Francisco. 

Cross-Examination  Waived. 

Sworn  to  and  subscribed  before  me,  this  18th  day  of  August,  A.  D., 
1857. 

FRANK  LEWIS, 
Special  Commissioner. 

Filed  August  29th,  1857. 

W.  H.  CHEYERS, 

Deputy. 


320 
NOTICE  OF  MOTION, 

U.  S.  DISTRICT  COURT, 
Nor.  Dist.  California. 

The  United  States     ) 

v.  [    D.  C.  420 :  L.  C.  366. 

Andres  Castillero.      ) 

San  Francisco,  Nov.  16,  1857. 
Gentemen  :  Please  take  notice  that  on  Monday,  the  23d  day  of 
November  instant,  before  the  said  District  Court,  at  the  opening  of 
the  Court,  or  as  soon  thereafter  as  the  motion  can  be  heard,  I  shall 
move  the  Court  on  behalf  of  the  United  States  for  leave  to  recall  and 
further  cross-examine  Antonio  Sunol  and  Jose  Noriega,  heretofore  ex- 
amined in  this  case  before  the  U.  S.  Land  Commission  as  witnesses 
on  behalf  of  Andres  Castillero,  and  for  such  order  as  may  be  proper 
to  procure  the  attendance  of  said  witnesses  for  the  purpose  of  such 
cross-examination.     Yours,  &c. 

P.  DELLA  TORRE, 
U.  S.  Atty. 
Mess.  Halleck,  Peachy  &  Billings, 

Attys  for  Claimant. 
Service  of  copy  within  acknowledged  this  16th  Nov.  A.  D.  1857. 

HALLECK,  PEACHY  &  BILLINGS. 
Filed  Nov.  16th,  1857. 

J.  EDGAR  GRYMES, 
Deputy. 


ORDER  TO  RECALL  WITNESSES. 

DISTRICT  COURT  OF  THE  U.  S.  FOR   THE   NORTHERN 
DISTRICT  OF  CALIFORNIA. 

The  United  States       ) 

vs.  [  No.  420  D.  C.  336  L.  C. 

Andres  Castillero.      ) 

On  motion  of  P.  Delia  Torre,  Esq.,  U.  S.  District  Attorney,  here- 
tofore submitted  and  taken  under  advisement  by  the  Court,  it  is  or- 
dered that  Antonio  Sunol  and  Jose'  Noriega,  heretofore  examined  as 
witnesses  in  this  cause  on  behalf  of  Andres  Castillero,  the  claimant, 
be  recalled  for  further  cross-examination  by  tne  United  States  ;  but 


321 

that  said  witnesses,  in  respect  to  any  further  examination  in  this 
Court,  shall  not  he  considered  the  witnesses  of  either  party,  and  that 
each  party  shall  have  the  right  to  cross-examine  or  contradict  or  im- 
peach them  as  if  they  were  introduced  by  the  opposite  party. 

And  it  is  further  ordered  that  either  party  may  procure  the  attend- 
ance of  said  witnesses  by  subpoena,  as  in  ordinary  cases,  and  the  party 
requiring  their  attendance  and  examination  shall  not  be  estopped 
there  by  from  cross-examining  said  witnesses,  and  contradicting  and 
impeaching  them  to  the  same  extent  as  if  they  were  offered  as  wit- 
nesses by  the  opposite  party. 

OGDEN  HOFFMAN, 
U.  S.  Dist.  Judge. 
Filed  Nov.  20, 1857. 

J.  EDGAR  GRYMES, 

Deputy. 


U.  S.  DISTRICT   COURT,  NORTHERN  DISTRICT    OF 
CALIFORNIA. 

DEPOSITION  OF  S.  0.  HOUGHTON. 

The  United  States' 

vs. 

Andres  Castillero. 

San  Francisco,  Oct.  23d,  1857. 
On  this  day,  before  Cutler  McAllister,  a  Commissioner  of  the  U. 
S.  for  the  Northern  District  of  California,  duly  authorised  to  adminis- 
ter oaths  &c,  &c,  came  S.  0.  Houghton,  a  witness  produced  on  be- 
half of  the  Claimants,  in  Case  No.  420,  being  an  appeal  from  the 
Board  of  Commissioners  to  ascertain  and  settle  the  Private  Land 
Claims  in  the  State  of  California,  in  case  No.  360,  on  the  Board  of 
Commissioners,  and  was  duly  sworn  and  testified  as  follows : 

Present  :  The  U.  S.  Dist.  Atty.,  by  A.  P.  Crittenden,  for  the 
United  States,  and  A.  C.  Peachy,  for  Claimant. 

Questions  by  A.  C.  Peachy,  for  Claimant. 

Question  1. — Your  name,  age,  and  place  of  residence  ? 
Answer. — S.  0.  Houghton.     I  am  28  years  of  age.     I  live  in  San 
Jose. 

Ques   2. — What  office  do  you  hold  ? 

Ans. — Deputy  County  Recorder,  Santa  Clara  County. 


322 

Ques.  3. — Have  you  brought  with  you  from  said  office  any  docu- 
ment ?  if  yea,  produce  it. 

Ans.  — I  have  brought  with  me  from  said  office  a  Spanish  docu- 
ment called  "  Posesion  de  la  Mina  de  Sta.  Clara,  Ano  de  1845." 

(It  is  hereby  agreed  between  the  Attorneys  for  the  respective  par- 
ties, that  the  paper  endorsed  "  Act  of  Possession,"  "  Almaden  Mine" 
"  Copy"  "  Exhibit  R.  No.  1."  which  is  attached  and  referred  to  in 
the  Deposition  of  Geo.  M.  Yoell,  a  witness  produced  on  behalf  of  the 
United  States,  taken  on  the  18th  August,  1857,  in  this  cause  and 
filed  on  the  twenty-ninth  August,  1857,  is  a  traced  copy  of  the  docu- 
ment produced  by  the  witness  S.  0.  Houghton,  and  referred  to  in  his 
answer  to  question  3d  of  this  deposition.) 

Cross-Examination. 

Questions  by  Attorney  for  U.  S. 

Ques.  1 — How  long  have  you  been  employed  in  the  office  of  the 
County  Recorder  of  Santa  Clara  County  ? 

Ans.  1 — I  went  in  the  office  first  in  1852,  either  in  October  or 
November  ;  I  remained  there  until  sometime  in  the  latter  part  of  the 
summer,  1853.  I  was  appointed  Deputy  again  I  think  in  August, 
1856  ;  that  appointmenfaccording  to  my  recollection  ran  untill  March, 
1857,  altho'  I  was  not  in  the  office  all  the  time.  I  think  it  was  in 
March  when  the  appointment  was  revoked.  My  present  appointment 
is  dated  the  20th  or  21st  of  October  1857.  All  this  is  according  to 
the  best  of  my  recollection. 

Ques.  2 — When  you  went  into  the  office  in  1852,  did  you  or  not 
make  yourself  acquainted  with  the  papers  in  the  office  ? 

Ans.  2 — I  had  the  entire  charge  of  the  office  from  the  fall  of  1852 
to  the  summer  of  1853.  I  was  well  acquainted  with  the  papers  in 
the  office. 

Ques.  3 — "Were  there  any  documents,  books,  or  papers  in  the  Span- 
ish language  in  the  office  of  the  County  Recorder  of  Santa  Clara 
County  in  the  year  1852,  at  the  time  when  you  took  charge  of  that 
office,  and  if  yea,  what  ? 

Ans.  3 — There  were  some  Spanish  books  of  Record  there,  there 
were  some  few  Spanish  papers  there,  that  were  not  considered  of  any 
value.  There  were  but  very  few  of  these  papers,  they  are  all  there 
still,  my  recollection  about  them  is  very  indefinite,  it  was  so  long  ago. 

Ques.  4 — Did  you  or  did  you  not,  in  the  year  1852,  see  in  the 
office  of  the  County  Recorder  of  Santa  Clara  County,  to  the  best  of 
your  recollection,  the  document  in  the  Spanish  language  here  pro- 
duced by  you  in  evidence  ? 


323 

Ans.  4 — I  have  no  recollection  of  having  seen  it  in  1852. 

Ques.  5 — Can  you  or  can  you  not  say  whether  that  paper  was  in 
that  office  in  the  year  1852,  to  the  best  of  your  recollection,  know- 
ledge and  belief,  founded  upon  your  custody  of  the  office  and  know- 
ledge of  its  contents,  as  you  have  stated  ? 

Ans.  5 — I  cannot  state  positively  either  way.  It  may  have  been 
there  and  it  may  not.  The  first  recollection  I  have  of  the  document 
is  a  few  days  before  the  date  of  this  filing  on  the  back  of  it,  which  is 
"Filed  February  25th,  A.  D.  1853,  at  12  o'clock,  A.  M.,  J.  M. 
Murphy,  Recorder,  By  S.  0.  Houghton,  Deputy." 

I  think  it  was  sometime  in  the  month  of  February  I  think  so  from 
the  time  this  filing  is  dated.  Mr.  James  A.  Forbes  came  to  the  office 
and  desired  to  see  the  record  of  this  paper,  describing  the  paper  to 
me.  I  examined  the  record  and  told  him  that  it  was  not  recorded 
there.  He  then  looked  for  it  himself  and  insisted  that  it  was  recorded 
there  ;  he  did  not  find  it.  He  was  looking  for  the  record  of  the  paper, 
not  for  the  paper  itself.  Some  days  after  that  I  found  the  paper  in 
the  office.  There  was  a  safe  in  the  .office,  in  the  top  of  which  were 
some  papers  ;  there  was  also  a  desk  with  pigeon  holes  containing  pa- 
pers, I  found  it  in  one  or  the  other  of  them.  I  do  not  recollect 
which. 

Ques.  6 — When  you  found  the  paper,  how  did  you  recognize  it  ? 

Ans.  6 — By  the  description  given  of  it  by  Mr.  Forbes. 

Ques.  7. — If  you  had  ever  seen  such  a  paper  before  in  the  office, 
would  you  not  have  remembered  it  ? 

Ans.  7 — I  think  that  I  should. 

Ques.  8 — Were  you  not  surprised  when  you  saw  the  paper  ? 
•   Ans.  8 — I  was  surprised  that  such  a  paper  should  be  there  without 
its  being  known. 

Ques.  9 — Did  Mr.  James  A.  Forbes  appear  to  be  making  a  tho- 
rough search,  and  about  how  long  was  he  in  searching  for  the  record 
of  that  paper  of  which  you  have  before  spoken  ? 

Ansi  9 — I  think  he  and  I  together  searched  more  than  one  day,  he 
represented  the  paper  to  me  to  be  of  great  importance,  and  I  made  a 
very  thorough  search  for  the  record  of  it. 

Ques.  10 — Did  you  always  keep  your  safe  locked  during  business 
hours,  and  did  you  always  keep  a  strict  guard  upon  those  pigeon 
holes,  or  was  it  possible  to  insert  a  paper  into  the  top  of  that  safe,  or 
into  those  pigeon  holes,  without  your  observing  when  it  was  done  ? 

Ans.  10 — The  safe  and  the  pigeon  holes  were  generally  open  dur- 
ing business  hours  when  I  was  in  the  office  ;  the  books  of  record  were 
kept  in  the  safe,  and  the  safe  was  kept  open  for  the  purpose  of  getting 
access  to  the  books  when  persons  came  to  examine  them.  There  was 
no  particular  guard  kept  upon  anything  in  the  office.  I  never  suffered 
any  person  there  unless  I  was  there.     It  is  possible  that   anything 


324 

might  be  inserted  into  the  top  of  that  safe  or  those  pigeon  holes  with- 
out my  knowing  it. 

Ques.  11 — After  you  found  the  paper  what  did  you  do  with  it  ? 

Ans.  11 — I  kept  it  there  until  Mr.  Forbes  came,  and  filed  it  at  his 
request. 

Ques.  12 — In  whose  handwriting  is  that  filing  ? 

Aug.  12 — This  filing,  dated  Feb.  25,  1853,  is  in  my  hand  writing. 

Ques.  13 — In  what  sort  of  a  building  was  the  County  Recorder's 
office  kept  during  the  period  of  which  you  have  just  been  speaking  ? 

Ans.  13 — From  the  fall  of  1852  to  the  spring  of  1853,  it  was  kept 
in  the  second  story  of  a  wooden  building.  During  a  part  of  that  time 
a  family  occupied  the  story  below*  There  was  a  door  opening  on  the 
street  at  the  stairway.  There  were  but  two  rooms  up  stairs  in  the 
building,  the  stairway  led  into  one  of  them,  the  Recorder's  Office  was 
kept  in  the  other ;  there  was  a  portico  above  in  the  front  of  the  house. 
A  door  and  two  windows  opened  on  it ;  we  had  locks  on  the  doors.  I 
do  not  recollect  now  whether  or  not  there  was  any  fastening  to  the 
windows. 

Ques.  14 — What  made  you  search  for  that  paper  ? 

Ans.  14 — I  think  I  must  have  found  it  by  accident,  because  no  one 
ever  asked  me  to  search  for  it. 

Ques.  15 — About  what  number  or  bulk  of  loose  Spanish  documents 
were  there  in  the  office  at  the  time  when  you  discovered  the  paper  of 
which  you  have  spoken ;  and  about  what  length  of  time  would  it 
take  to  examine  them  all  and  see  what  they  were  ? 

Ans.  15 — There  were  but  very  few,  they  would  not  make  the  bulk 
of  the  paper  which  I  brought  with  me  from  the  office,  and  of  which  I 
have  been  testifying. 

Ques.  16 — Had  you  at  that  time  a  knowledge  of  the  Spanish  lan- 
guage ;  could  you  read  it  readily  or  not ;  were  you  familiar  with  the 
Spanish  handwriting  so  as  readily  to  read  Spanish  manuscripts  ? 

Ans.  16 — I  was  well  acquainted  with  the  language  at  that  time, 
and  could  read  Spanish  manuscript  readily. 

Direct  Examination  Resumed. 

Ques.  1 — Had  you  ever  made  a  search  for  this  paper  before  Mr. 
Forbes  came  into  your  office  on  the  occasion  to  which  you  have  re- 
ferred, to  look  for  the  record  of  it  ? 

Ans.  1 — I  never  looked  for  the  record  of  it,  or  the  paper  itself, 
previous  to  that  time. 

S.  0.  HOUGHTON. 
Subscribed  and  sworn  to  before  me,  this  23d  Oct.  1857. 

CUTLER  MCALLISTER, 

U.  S.  Comm'r. 


Filed  Nov.  20th,  '57. 


JNO.  A.  MONROE,  Clerk. 


325 
DEPOSITION  OF  H.  W.  HALLECK. 

UNITED    STATES   DISTRICT    COURT,   NORTHERN    DIS- 
TRICT OF  CALIFORNIA. 


The  United  States 

vs. 
Andres  Castillero. 


San  Francisco,  October  23d,  1857. 
On  this  day  before  Cutler  McAllister,  a  Commissioner  of  the  United 
States  for  the  Northern  District  of  California,  duly  authorized  to  ad- 
minister oaths,  &c,  &c,  came  £L  W.  Halleck,  a  witness  produced  on 
behalf  of  the  Claimant,  in  case  No.  420,  being  an  appeal  from  the 
Board  of  Commissioners  to  ascertain  and  settle  the  Private  Land 
Claims  in  the  State  of  California,  in  Case  No.  366  on  the  Docket  of 
the  said  Board  of  Commissioners,  and  was  duly  sworn  and  testified  as 
follows : 

Present  : — The  U.  S.  District  Attorney,  by  A.  P.  Crittenden,  for 
the  United  States,  and  A.  C.  Peachy  for  Claimants. 

Questions  by  U.  S.  Attorney. 
(  Witness  put  on  Ms  Voir  Dire.') 

Ques.  1. — Are  you  in  any  way  connected  with  this  case,  either  as 
party  or  counsel  ? 

Ans.  1. — In  no  way  as  party  ;  and  as  counsel  in  no  way  except  as  a 
partner  in  law  business  with  Peachy  &  Billings,  who  are  the  counsel  in 
this  case.  I  do  not  receive  and  never  have  received  any  part  of  their 
fees  as  counsel  in  this  case. 

Ques.  2. — Does  not  your  name  appear  as  one  of  the  counsel  of  re- 
cord in  this  case  ? 

Ans.  2. — It  does,  as  a  member  of  the  law  firm  of  Halleck,  Peachy 
&  Billings. 

Ques.  3. — Do  you  mean  to  say  that  you  have  no  interest  in  the  fees 
of  the  firm  of  Halleck,  Peachy  &  Billings  for  their  services  in  this 
case  ;  and  do  you  mean  to  say  that  those  fees  are  not  to  be  allowed  in 
your  accounts  with  Peachy  &  Billings  as  partners  ? 

Ans.  3. — I  do  mean  so  to  say.  Messrs.  Peachy  &  Billings  are  and 
long  have  been  the  Attorneys  for  the  mine  of  New  Almaden,  I  have 
not,  do  not  now,  nor  do  I  ever  expect  to  have  any  part  of  the  fees 
paid  or  to  be  paid  for  such  services. 

Ques.  4. — Then  the  professional  services  which  you  have  rendered, 


326 

and  may  hereafter  render  in  this  case  are  entirely  gratuitous  ?     Is  that 


so 


Ans.  4. — All  professional  services  which  I  have  rendered  in  this 
case  have  been  for  Messrs.  Peachy  &  Billings,  never  having  been  em- 
ployed as  counsel  for  the  New  Almaden  Company.  With  respect  to 
future  professional  services  I  am  unable  to  answer  further  than  to  say 
that  I  am  not  employed,  and  do  not  expect  to  be  employed  in  the  case. 
I  have  not  been  and  do  not  expect  to  be  paid  anything  for  the  services 
rendered,  by  anybody. 

Ques.  5. — Does  your  name  still  stand  as  one  of  the  Attorneys  of 
record  in  this  case,  or  has  it  been  withdrawn  ? 

Ans.  5. — The  name  of  the  law  firm  of  Halleck,  Peachy  &  Billings, 
I  believe,  still  stands  as  of  record  in  this  case  ;  the  name  of  the  firm 
being  used  in  the  papers  instead  of  Peachy  &  Billings,  who  are  the 
parties  employed  as  counsel. 

Ques.  6. — Why  was  that  done  ? 

Ans.  6. — I  do  not  know,  further  than  it  has  been  and  is  the  custom 
of  our  office  to  use  the  name  of  the  firm  where  the  members  of  the 
firm  were  not  all  interested  as  counsel. 

Ques.  7. — Were  you  not  a  partner  of  Messrs.  Peachy  &  Billings 
when  they  were  employed  as  counsel  in  this  case  ? 

Ans.  7. — Messrs  Peachy  &  Billings  were  employed  as  counsel  for 
the  New  Almaden  Company  in  1850,  a  short  time  after  I  became  a 
member  of  the  firm,  and  while  I  was  in  Oregon  ;  a*nd  it  was  under- 
stood when  I  returned  that  the  fees  in  that  employment  were  to  belong 
to  them  ;  and  in  all  their  subsequent  engagements  with  the  Company 
they  made  their  own  contracts  and  received  the  fees,  my  name  not 
being  used  in  the  contracts,  and  they  alone  receiving  the  fees — as  I 
take  it  for  granted  they  got  their  fees. 

Ques.  8. — Were  there  any  special  reasons  for  such  an  arrange- 
ment ? 

Ans.  8. — Yes,  they  were  to  perform  the  services  and  incur  the  res- 
ponsibilities of  counsel  in  the  case. 

Ques.  9. — As  you  were  their  partner  at  the  time  the  contract  was 
made,  and  should  naturally  have  participated  in  its  benefits  and  res- 
ponsibilities, why  were  you  omitted  in  entering  into  this  arrange- 
ment? 

Ans.  9.  —When  the  arrangement  was  first  made  I  was  not  here  ; 
and  in  a  number  of  other  instances  the  fees  of  cases  conducted  in  the 
names  of  the  law  firms  of  which  I  have  been  a  member,  have  not  been 
divided  equally  among  the  partners,  the  members  who  did  the  princi- 
pal business  in  those  cases  being  entitled,  by  a  private  arrangement 
between  ourselves,  to  most  of  the  fees. 

Ques.  10. — In  answer  to  question  concerning  professional  services 
rendered  or  to  be  rendered  in  this  case,  you  have  spoken  of  the  New 


327 

Almaden  Company,  what  has  that  Company  to  do  with  this  case  in 
which  the  parties  on  record  are  the  United  States  and  Andres  Cas- 
tillero  ? 

(Question  objected  to  by  Attorney  for  Claimant,  as  being  irrelevant 
and  not  proper  to  be  put  to  a  witness  on  examination  upon  his  Voir 
Dire.) 

Ans.  10. — I  mean  that  the  New  Almaden  Company  employ  Messrs. 
Peachy  &  Billings  to  prosecute  this  claim  of  Andres  Castillero,  or, 
at  least,  as  counsel  for  that  Company  they  do  so  prosecute  this  claim. 

Ques.  11. — Who  compose  the  New  Almaden  Company  ? 

(Objected  to  on  the  same  ground  as  question  10.) 

Ans.  11. — Mr.  Parrott  (John),  Mr.  Wm.  E.  Barron,  Mr.  J.  R. 
Bolton,  Mr.  Escandon,  Mr.  Martinez,  Mr.  E.  Barron,  of  the  City  of 
Mexico ;  Mr.  E.  W.  Barron  and  Mr.  Wm.  Forbes,  of  Mexico,  and 
others  have  been  and  perhaps  some  others  now  are  members  of  that 
Company.  I  cannot  say  positively  that  all  the  persons  I  have  named 
are  now  members  of  the  Company ;  I  mention  them  as  persons  whom 
I  believe  to  be  members  of  the  Company. 

(Attorney  for  Olaimant  objects  to  the  answer  of  the  witness  as 
being  incompetent  to  prove  the  existence  of  the  Company  or  its  mem 
bers.) 

Ques.  12. — Is  Mr.  Alexander  Forbes,  formerly  of  Tepic,  a  member, 
or  was  he  ever  a  member  of  that  Company  ? 

(Question  objected  to  on  the  same  grounds  as  preceding  question 
and  answer.) 

Ans".  12. — I  do  not  think  he  is,  although  I  cannot  say  positively. 
I  think  he  was  a  member,  but  I  do  not  know  when  he  ceased  to  be 
one.  I  have  understood  for  several  years  that  he  had  ceased  to  be  a 
member. 

Ques.  13. — At  the  request  of  what  members  or  agent  of  that  Com- 
pany did  the  firm  of  Halleck,  Peachy  &  Billings  appear  as  counsel  for 
the  claimant  in  this  case  ? 

(Objected  to  as  irrelevant.) 

Ans.  13. — I  think  the  agreement  with  Messrs.  Peachy  &  Billings 
was  made  by  Mr.  Wm.  E  Barron,  as  the  agent  of  the  Company.     It 


328 

may  have  been  by  the  firm  of  Bolton  &  Barron,  of  which  Mr.  Wm. 
E.  Barron  is  a  member,  I  do  not  recollect  which.  Mr.  J.  R.  Bolton 
above  spoken  of  is  the  other  member  of  the  firm  of  Bolton  &  Barron. 

Ques.  14. — Are  you  or  have  you  ever  been  employed  as  counsel  by 
the  New  Almaden  Company  in  any  other  matter  or  proceeding  involv- 
ing the  title  to  the  land  and  mine  claimed  in  this  case  ? 

Ans.  14. — I  have  acted  as  counsel,  as  a  member  of  the  firm  of 
Halleck,  Peachy  &  Billings,  in  doing  the  law  business  of  the  firm,  but 
individually  or  otherwise  I  have  not  been  employed.  As  a  member  of 
the  firm  I  have  acted  as  counsel  and  have  regarded  myself  as  such.  I 
have  never  received  any  fees  for  such  services  as  Counsel. 

Ques.  15. — Are  you  in  the  employ  of  the  New  Almaden  Company 
in  any  capacity  ? 

Ans.  15. — I  am ;  as  superintendent  and  general  director  of  the 
operations  and  engineering  at  the  mine,  on  a  salary. 

Ques.  16. — Since  what  time  ? 

Ans.  16. — I  was  employed  by  Mr.  DeLa  Torre  in  March,  or  April, 
1850,  and  have  continued  in  that  employment  ever  since. 

Ques.  l7._What  Mr.  De  La  Torre  ? 

Ans.  17. — Don  Isidoro  De  La  Torre.  He  was  then  a  member  of 
the  Company,  but  I  think  is  not  now.  He  was  of  the  house  of  Jecker, 
Torre  &  Co.,  but  I  think  he  is  not  a  member  of  that  house  now.  This 
firm  has  various  establishments  in  Mexico :  the  principal  one  is  at  the 
City  of  Mexico. 

Ques.  18. — What  were  the  terms  of  your  employment  as  superin- 
tendent ? 

Ans.  18. — I  was  employed  to  superintend  the  operations  at  the  mine 
on  a  salary. 

Ques.  19. — What  salary,  and  how  long  was  the  contract  to  con- 
tinue ? 

Ans.  19. — It  was  on  a  monthly  salary  to  continue  as  long  as  both 
parties  were  satisfied.  What  that  amount  was  is  my  own  business,  and 
I  decline  to  answer  it. 

Examination  adjourned  until  1]  P.  M.,  Oct.  24, 1857. 

Examination  Continued,  Oct.  24th,  1857. 

Present  : — A.  P.  Crittenden  for  U.  S.  District  Attorney ;  A.  C. 
Peachy  for  claimant. 

Ques.  20.— What  salary  ? 

Ans.  20. — I  decline  answering  this  question. 

Ques.  21. — Do  you  own  any  shares  or  interest  in  the  New  Almaden 
Company,  or  in  the  property  which  they  claim  in  the  mine  and  lands 
which  are  the  subject  of  this  action  ? 


329 

Ans.  21. — I  do  not  now,  and  never  have  owned  any  interest  what- 
ever. 

Ques.  22. — Are  you  not  interested  to  the  amount  of  your  salary  in 
sustaining  the  title  of  the  New  Almaden  Company  to  the  mine  and 
lands  claimed  in  this  suit  ? 

(Question  objected  to  by  attorney  for  claimant  because  it  is  directed 
to  ascertain  interest  which  does  not  affect  the  witness'  competency.) 

Ans.  22. — I  am  not ;  my  employment  is  only  from  month  to  month, 
and  is  not  by  the  Company  which  claims  ownership  to  the  mine  and 
lands  of  New  Almaden.  It  is  by  lessees  of  that  company  who  work 
the  mine,  and  does  not. extend  to  the  future. 

Ques.  23.— Did  not  I  understand  you  correctly  as  saying,  in  answer 
to  a  former  question,  that  your  employment  was  indefinite  in  point  of 
time,  but  could  be  terminated  at  the  end  of  any  month  ? 

Ans.  23. — I  do  not  think  I  have  said  so.  What  I  meant  to  say 
was  that  I  was  employed  by  the  month  on  a  monthly  salary,  which 
employment  could  be  terminated  at  any  time  by  either  party. 

Ques.  24. — Then  I  am  not  to  understand  that  you  make  a  new  con- 
tract every  month  with  your  employers,  but  that  you  have  worked 
heretofore,  and  are  now  continuing  to  work,  under  one  contract  which 
has  extended  over  several  years  and  many  months  ? 

Ans.  24. — My  contract  in  1850  was  for  that  year,  on  a  monthly 
salary,  if  both  parties  were  satisfied  to  continue  it  through  the  year  ; 
at  the  end  of  that  time  I  was  requested  to  continue  in  the  same  service 
on  the  same  monthly  pay  from  month  to  month,  but  no  new  contract 
other  than  the  request  alluded  to,  and  my  continuing  to  render  the 
same  services,  was  ever  entered  into.  I  continued  and  still  continue 
to  act  and  to  receive  my  monthly  salary.  When  absent  from  the 
State  or  not  performing  the  duties  I  was  not  considered  as  entitled  to 
the  monthly  salary. 

Ques.  25. — Under  these  circumstances  are  you  not  mistaken  in  say- 
ing that  -your  contract  does  not  extend  to  the  future  ? 

Ans.  25. — I  think  I  am  not;  for,  if  my  services  are  not  wanted 
to-morrow,  I  have  no  contract  which  would  continue  my  employment. 

Ques.  26, — Do  not  tne  lessees,  by  whom  you  are  employed,  neces- 
sarily hold  under  the  same  title  with  the  lessors,  the  New  Almaden 
Company  ;  and  if  the  latter  were  ejected  by  a  superior  title,  would  not 
their  lease  and  your  employment  and  salary  thereby  be  brought  to  an 
end  ? 

Ans.  26. — I  suppose  they  hold  under  the  same  title  ;  whether  my 
employment  by  or  salary  from  the  lessees  would  cease  or  not  is  more 
than  I  can  say. 

Ques.  27. — If  lessors  and  lessees  and  all  their  servants  were  ejected 
29 


330 

from  the  mines  and  the  lands,  do  you  conceive  that  there  is  a  reason- 
able probability,  or  scarcely  a  possibility,  that  you  could  continue  to  re- 
ceive your  salary  as  superintendent  and  director  ? 

Ans.  27. — On  the  supposition  made  I  think  it  most  probable  that 
the  lessees  would  not  desire  to  employ  me  any  longer  in  their  ser- 
vice. 

Ques.  28. — Do  you  conceive  that  the  conclusion  you  have  just  stated 
may  be  classed  among  the  certainties  ef  human  affairs  ? 

Bns.  28. — I  do  not.  I  do  not  think  it  as  probable  that  my  employ- 
ment by  the  lessees  will  terminate  in  the  way  indicated,  as  by  my  ceas- 
ing of  my  own  free  will  to  continue  in  such  employment. 

Ques.  29. — Are  not  the  lessees  of  the  property  in  this  suit  the  same 
persons,  or  to  a  great  extent  the  same  persons,  who  compose  the  Com- 
pany of  New  Almaden  ;  and,  if  yea,  what  persons  are  the  same  who 
are  members  of  the  Company  and  lessees  in  the  lease  ? 

(Question  objected  to  by  attorney  for  claimant,  first,  because  the 
U.  S.  attorney  has  no  right  to  propound  that  question  to  the  witness 
upon  his  examination  on  his  voire  dire  second,  because  it  is  not 
competent,  and  third,  because  it  is  irrelevant.) 

Ans.  29. — They  are- not  the  same  ;  the  only  persons  who,  I  believe, 
have  an  interest,  both  in  the  property  claimed  in  this  case  and  also  in 
the  lease  or  contract  for  working  the  mine,  are  Mr.  E.  Barron,  of  Mex- 
ico, Mr.  William  Forbes,  of  Mexico,  and  perhaps  Mr.  E.  W.  Barron, 
of  Tepic,  although  I  am  not  certain  that  he  is  a  partner  in  the  lease. 

Ques.  30. — Who  are  the  other  persons  who  are  partners  in  the 
lease  ? 

(Question  objected  to  by  attorney  for  claimant,  on  the  same  grounds 
as  the  objections  to  the  preceding  question.) 

Ans.  30. — I  do  not  know  who  are  at  the  present  time.  The  house 
of  Gibbs  &  Co.,  of  Peru,  the  members  of  which  I  do  not  know,  were 
and  I  think  still  are  interested  in  the  lease,  also  Mr.  Escandon,  of 
Mexico,  whom  I  have  mentioned,  I  think,  incorrectly  as  one  of  the 
owners.  My  recollection  now  is  that  he  claimed  no  interest  in  the  title 
to  the  mine. 

Ques.  31. — Who  was  the  person  acting  in  behalf  of  the  lessees  with 
whom  you  contracted  ? 

Ans.  31. — Don  Isidoro  De  La  Torre.  The  lessees  employ  me,  and 
the  owners  of  the  mine  employ  the  counsel ;  we  are  employed  by  dif- 
ferent parties. 

Ques.  32. — In  March  or  April,  when  Mr.  De  La  Torre  employed 


.     331 

you  for  the  lessees,  was  he  not  at  that  time  one  of  those  claiming  title 
to  the  mine,  &c — I  mea*n  a  member  of  the  New  Almaden  Company  ? 

(Question  objected  to  by  attorney  for  claiment,  on  the  same  grounds 
of  objection  as  to  question  29.) 

Ans.  32. — He  then  claimed  to  be  one  of  the  owners,  and  also  to 
have  an  interest  in  the  lease.  He  employed  me  on  the  part  of  the 
lessees,  and  afterwards  informed  me  that  his  act  in  employing  me  was 
approved  by  the  majority  of  the  other  lessees. 

Ques.  33. — In  your  11th,  12th  and  1 7th  answers  you  have  mentioned 
as  persons  who  are  or  have  been  members  of  the  New  Almaden  Com- 
pany, those  who  follow,  viz ;  Mr.  John  Parrott,  Wm.  E.  Barron,  J. 
R.  Bolton,  Mr.  Escandon,  (corrected,)  Mr.  Martinez,  Mr.  E.  Barron, 
of  the  City  of  Mexico,  Mr.  E.  W.  Barron,  Wm.  Forbes,  of  Mexico, 
Alexander  Forbes,  of  Tepic,  and  Mr.  Isidoro  De  La  Torre,  of  the 
house  of  Jecker,  Torre  &  Co.;  should  you  not  add  to  this  list  James 
Alexander  Forbes,  of  the  town  of  Santa  Clara,  county  of  Santa  Clara, 
and  Robert  Walkinshaw,  of  New  Almaden,  county  of  Santa  Clara  ? 

Ans.  33. — I  should  add  the  name  of  James  Alexander  Forbes  as 
one  who  has  been  an  owner,  and  of  Robert  Walkinshaw  as  one  who 
now  is.  Probably  there  are  others  whom  I  do  not  at  this  moment  re- 
collect. 

Ques.  34. — Were  not  both  of  these  persons  last  mentioned,  mem- 
bers of  the  Company  in  the  years  1849, 1850, 1851, 1852  and  1853  ? 

(Question  objected  to  by  attorney  for  claimant,  on  the  same  grounds 
of  objection  as  those  to  question  29.) 

Ans.  34. — I  believe  that  at  the  dates  mentioned  they  were  both 
members  of  the  New  Almaden  Company  which  claimed  ownership,  but 
neither  were  of  the  company  by  which  I  am  employed. 

Ques.  35. — What  salary  do  you  receive  as  superintendent  and  di- 
rector ?- 

Ans.  35. — I  receive  and  have  ever  since  I  have  been  in  the  employ 
of  the  Company,  $500  per  month. 

(Witness  objected  by  Attorney  for  the  United  States,  on  the  score  of 

interest.^) 

Direct  Examination  Commenced. 

Questions  by  Attorney  for  the  Claimant. 

Ques.  1. — Have  you  seen  the  document  which  was  produced  by  S. 


332      . 

0.  Houghton,  a  witness  examined  on  behalf  of  the  claimant  in  this 
cause,  on  his  examination  taken  on  the  23d  Oct.,  1857  ? 

Ans.  1. — I  have.     I  have  it  now  in  my  hands. 

Ques.  2. — Please  to  state  when  and  where  you  first  saw  that  docu- 
ment? 

Ans.  2. — I  first  saw  it  in  the  winter  of  1851,  in  the  office  of  Josiah 
Belden,  Mayor  of  San  Jose*. 

Ques.  3. — Do  you  know  whether  that  document  was  ever  removed 
from  the  office  of  the  Mayor  of  San  Jose'  ;  if  yea,  state  when,  and  by 
whom,  and  to  what  place  ? 

Ans.  3» — A  document  which  I  think  is  the  one  I  now  hold  in  my 
hand,  was  taken  by  Mr.  Belden  in  my  presence  from  his  office,  and 
transferred  to  the  office  of  the  County  Recorder  of  Santa  Clara  coun- 
ty, in  the  winter  of  1851,  during  the  session  of  the  Legislature,  and 
I  think  in  the  month  of  January. 

This  is  the  same  document  which  Mr.  Houghton  produced  yester- 
day. 

Ques.  4. — State  why  Mr.  Belden  removed  that  document  as  you 
have  stated. 

Ans.  4.< — I  asked  him  for  a  certified  copy  of  it ;  he  said  he  had  no 
power  to  give  one,  but  would  transfer  it  to  the  office  of  the  Recorder, 
who  could  give  a  certified  copy.  He  took  it  and  we  both  walked 
round  to  the  Recorder's  office  ;  he  gave  it  to  Mr.  Richardson,  the 
Recorder,  and  either  he  or  I  told  Mr.  Richardson  I  wanted  a  copy 
of  it. 

Ques.  5. — How  came  you  to  find  that  paper  in  the  Mayor's  office  ? 
and  state,  if  you  remember,  among  what  papers  you  found  it. 

Ans.  5. — My  recollection  now  is  that  I  first  went  to  Mr.  Richard- 
son, the  Recorder  of  Santa  Clara  County,  and  asked  him  for  a  copy  of 
the  papers  connected  with  the  New  Almaden  mine.  On  examination 
he  told  me  the  papers  were  not  in  his  office,  and  referred  me  to  Mr. 
Belden,  who  had  the  greater  portion  of  the  old  Alcalde  papers.  Mr. 
Belden  went  with  me  to  his  office,  and  opening  an  old  wooden  desk  he 
overhauled  some  old  papers  in  the  desk  and  found  this  among  them. 
I  don't  recollect  the  character  of  the  other  papers,  except  that  there 
were  other  papers  connected  with  other  mines  in  the  same  bundle, 
one  I  remember  was  endorsed  "  Expediente  of  Chaboya's  mine." 

Ques.  6. — Did  you  look  over  or  read  the  document  that  Mr.  Belden 
discovered,  and  which  was  the  object  of  your  search  ? 

Ans.  6. — I  looked  it  over  to  see  that  it  was  the  document  we  were 
in  search  of.  I  do  not  think  that  I  read  it  all.  I  may  and  I  may  not 
have  done  so. 

Ques.  7. — State  what  is  your  belief  as  to  the  identity  of  that  docu- 
ment with  the  one  produced  by  Mr.  Houghton  yesterday. 


333 

Ans.  7. — I  remember  that  the  document  so  transferred  purported  to 
be  the  original  "  Expediente  "  of  the  mine  of  Santa  Clara,  containing 
the  denouncement  and  juridical  possession.  I  think  this  is  the  same, 
but  I  do  not  now  remember  the  writing  on  the  second  leaf,  being  the 
third  and  fourth  pages.  I  only  remember  the  document  from  its  gen- 
eral contents  as  I  have  mentioned,  and  the  general  appearance  as  com- 
pared with  the  one  which  I  then  saw,  and  which  was  then  transferred 
to  the  Recorder's  office. 

Adjourned  until  11  o'clock,  Monday,  Oct.  26, 1857. 

San  Francisco,  Oct.  26, 1857. 

Deposition  of  H.  W.  Halleck,  a  witness  produced  on  behalf  of  the 
claimant,  continued. 

Present  : — U.  S.  Attorney,  by  A.  P.  Crittenden,  and  A.  C. 
Peachy  for  claimant. 

Cross  Examination. 

Questions  by  U.  S.  Attorney. 

Ques.  1. — Have  you  this  morning  read  over  all  questions  which 
were  put  to  you  on  your  voire  dire  and  your  answers  to  the  same, 
and  do  you  now  repeat  the  same  answers  to  each  and  every  of  those 
questions  ? 

Ans.  1. — I  have  read  them  over  ;  I  think  the  answers  are  correctly 
taken  down,  except  the  19th  answer,  on  my  voire  dire.  That  an- 
swer should  be  "  as  long  as  both  parties  were  satisfied  during  that 
year."  I  think  I  stated  elsewhere  that  fact.  With  this  correction  I 
now  repeat  the  same  answers. 

Ques.  2.-  In  your  fifth  answer  on  your  direct  examination,  you  say 
that  you  first  went  to  Richardson,  the  County  Recorder,  and  asked 
him  for  the  papers  connected  with  the  New  Almaden  Mine  ;  did  you 
go  alone  ? 

Ans.  2.— I  think  I  did. 

Ques.  3. — Will  you  reflect  upon  that  answer  and  endeavor  carefully 
to  remember  whether  you  wont  alone  or  some  one  went  with  you  ? 

Ans.  3. — I  do  not  recollect  of  any  one  going  with  me,  and  my  im- 
pression is  that  I  went  alone. 

Ques.  4. — How  long  a  time  did  Richardson  take  to  make  the  exam- 
ination for  the  papers  of  which  you  have  spoken  ? 


334 

Ans.  4. — -Not  more  than  a  couple  of  hours,  if  so  long  as  that. 

Ques.  5. — Did  you  remain  there  with  him  and  assist  in  that  search? 
Did  any  one  else  assist  in  the  seach,  and,  if  so,  who  ? 

Ans.  5. — I  think  I  assisted  in  looking  over  some  of  the  old  papers, 
which  he  laid  on  the  table  in  his  examination ;  I  do  not  recollect  any- 
body else  being  present. 

Ques.  6. — Did  you  go  alone  from  the  office  of  the  Recorder  to  the 
office  of  Belden  the  Mayor  ?  If  any  one  went  with  you,  who  was  it  ? 
Did  you  go  on  the  same  day  that  you  made  the  search  in  the  Re- 
corder's office,  and  if  not,  on  what  day  ? 

Ans.  6. — I  think  I  went  alone  ;  I  have  no  recollection  now  of  any 
one  going  with  me.  My  impression  is  that  I  went  the  same  day.  My 
impression  also  is  that  I  found  Mr.  Belden  in  the  building  where  the 
Legislature  was  in  session,  and  went  from  there  with  him  to  his  office  ; 
that  is  my  present  recollection  of  the  matter. 

Ques.  7. — Is  your  recollection  that  you  went  on  the  same  day,  and 
with  Belden  alone,  as  you  have  just  stated,  clear  and  certain  ? 

Ans.  7. — It  is  not  that  I  went  the  same  day.  It  is  pretty  clear 
that  there  was  no  one  with  Mr.  Belden  and  myself  when  we  went  to 
his  office  ;  but  I  cannot  say  positively. 

Ques.  8. — How  long  did  it  take  Mr.  Belden  to  make  the  search 
before  he  found  the  paper  ? 

Ans.  8. — My  recollection  is,  only  a  short  time.  It  may  have  been 
ten  minutes,  and  it  may  have  been  half  of  an  hour. 

Ques.  9. — Did  you  assist  Mr.  Belden  in  the  search.  Did  anybody 
else  join  you,  or  did  you  find  any  body  else  there  who  assisted  in  the 
search  ? 

Ans.  9. — I  think  that  I  assisted  Mr.  Belden  in  looking  over  the 
papers,  as  he  took  them  out  of  the  desk.  I  don't  think  any  one  else 
assisted,  or  was  present. 

Ques.  10. — Describe  that  desk. 

Ans.  10. — I  think  it  was  a  pine  desk,  with  doors  in  front,  which 
were  locked ;  but  I  do  not  recollect  particularly  its  appearance  and 
shape  otherwise  than  that.  Nor  am  I  certain  that  there  were  doors  to 
it.  My  recollection  is  that  I  had  to  wait  for  Mr.  Belden  to  go  to  his 
house  to  get  keys,  either  to  the  desk  or  to  the  room. 

I  do  not  recollect  the  size  of  it.  My  impression  now  is  that  it  was 
not  more  than  five  or  six  feet  wide,  nor  more  than  six  or  seven  feet 
high  ;  it  may  have  been  larger  or  smaller.  It  was  about  the  depth  of 
the  length  of  foolscap  paper.  I  think  it  was  not  full  of  papers  ;  my 
recollection  is  it  was  partially  full  of  old  papers ;  they  were  apparently 
assorted  in  bundles — at  least  a  part  of  them. 

Ques.  11. — What  made  you  go  to  the  office  of  Richardson  in  quest 
of  that  document  ? 

Ans.  11. — I  was  making  translations  of  papers  connected  with  the 


335 

mine,  for  the  purpose  of  sending  them  to  Mr.  De  La  Torre,  and  I  went 
to  get  a  copy  of  those  connected  with  the  denouncement  and  juridical 
possession  of  the  mine,  in  order  to  translate  them. 

Ques.  12. — Why  did  you  suppose  that  you  would  find  those  papers 
in  the  office  of  the  County  Recorder  ? 

Ans.  12. — Because  I  supposed  the  papers  of  the  old  Alcalde's  office 
would  be  found  in  the  Recorder's  office. 

Ques.  13. — Why  did  you  suppose  that  you  would  find  those  papers 
in  the  old  Alcalde's  office  ? 

Ans.  13. — Because  I  had  seen  a  copy  of  such  papers  purporting  to 
come  from  the  Alcalde's  office. 

Ques.  14. — Can  you  produce  that  copy  ? 

Ans.  14. — I  think  I  can.  I  think  it  was  the  copy  which  I  have 
already  produced  in  the  case,  at  the  request  of  the  Counsel  who  asked 
the  question.     I  think  I  had  also  seen  a  copy  signed  by  Chabolla. 

Ques.  15. — Is  the  paper,  which  I  now  hand  you,  marked  "  Exhibit 
R.  No.  2,"  attached  to  the  deposition  of  James  W.  Weekes,  a  witness 
produced  on  behalf  of  the  United  States,  taken  before  Special  Com- 
missioner J.  E.  Grymes  on  the  18th  of  Aug.,  1857,  and  on  file  in  this 
cause,  a  traced  copy  of  that  copy  which  you  had  seen,  and  of  which 
you  spoke  in  your  last  answer  ? 

Ans.  15. — I  think  that  this  is  a  traced  copy  of  one  of  the  papers  of 
which  I  have  spoken.    I  mean  of  the  first  one  of  which  I  have  spoken* 

Ques.  16. — Have  you  any  manner  of  doubt  that  this  is  a  traced 
copy  of  the  first  copy  of  which  you  spoke  ? 

Ans.  16. — I  have  none.  It  is  endorsed  in  the  hand-writing  of  Mr. 
Billings,  and  I  have  no  reason  to  doubt  but  that  it  is  a  correct  copy, 
although  I  do  not  recollect  to  have  compared  it  myself. 

Ques.  17. — Is  not  a  copy  of  a  writing  another  writing  with  the  same 
words  in  the  same  order ;  and  is  this  paper  which  you  have  just  looked 
at,  a  copy  of  that  which  you  found  in  the  office  of  Mr.  Belden  ? 

Ans.  17. — The  paper  which  I  found  in  the  office  of  Mr.  Belden  I 
only  remember  from  the  general  subject  matter  of  its  contents,  as  pur- 
porting to  be  an  original  paper  containing  the  denouncement  and  juri- 
dical possession  of  the  mine.  Whether  it  contained  the  same  papers 
as  in  "  Exhibit  R.  No.  2  "  referred  to,  or  more  or  less,  I  cannot  now 
remember.  My  recollection  is  that  I  did  not  examine  it  very  minutely, 
or  compare  it  with  any  of  those  copies  of  papers,  to  which  I  have  re- 
ferred. 

Ques.  18. — In  whose  possession  had  you  seen  that  copy  purporting 
to  come  from  the  Alcalde's  office,  of  which  you  spoke  first  ? 

Ans.  18. — I  think  I  first  saw  it  in  a  tin  trunk  of  papers  connected 
with  New  Almaden,  in  the  hands  of  Isidoro  De  La  Torre ;  but  I  cannot 
say  positively  that  the  original,  of  which  "  Exhibit  R.  No.  2,"  pur- 
ports to  be  a  copy,  was  the  first  I  saw,  or  the  other  copy  to  which  I 


336 

have  alluded.  I  may  have  seen  them  both  at  the  same  time,  when  he 
first  showed  me  the  papers. 

Ques.  19. — Did  you  see  that  other  copy,  to  which  you  allude,  in  the 
same  tin  box  in  the  possession  of  Isidoro  De  La  Torre  ? 

Ans.  19. — I  cannot  say.  I  have  seen  both  copies,  and  also  another 
copy  purporting  to  have  been  made  in  Mexico ;  but  whether  I  saw 
them  all  there,  or  what  one  of  them,  when  I  first  examined  the  papers 
in  his  possession,  I  do  not  now  remember. 

Ques.  20. — Did  you,  or  not,  see  the  copy  made  by  Chabolla  in  the 
possession  of  Mr.  De  La  Torre  ? 

Ans.  20. — I  do  not  remember  whether  I  did  or  not. 

Ques.  21. — In  whose  possession  did  you  see  it  ? 

Ans.  21. — I  have  frequently  seen  it  among  the  papers  of  the  New 
Almaden  Company,  but  I  cannot  say  when  I  first  saw  it.  My  recol- 
lection is  that  I  saw  it  as  far  back  as  1850. 

Ques.  22. — In  whose  possession  had  you  seen  the  third  copy  made 
in  Mexico  ? 

Ans.  22. — Among  the  same  papers.  My  recollection  is  that  that 
copy  was  a  certified  copy  of  the  original,  of  which  "  R.  No.  2  "  pur- 
ports to  be  a  copy.  That  is  my  present  recollection  of  it.  That  is, 
that  it  purports  to  be  a  copy  of  a  certified  copy,  made  by  Weekes  as 
Alcalde. 

Ques.  23. — Then  it  purports  to  be  a  copy  of  "  Exhibit  R.  No.  2," 
does  it  not  ? 

Ans.  23. — I  mean  a  copy  of  the  same  paper,  of  which  "  Exhibit  R. 
No.  2  "  purports  to  be  a  copy,  certified  to  by  somebody  in  Mexico. 

Ques.  24. — In  whose  custody  were  the  New  Almaden  papers  kept 
in  the  year  1850  and  in  the  month  of  January,  1851  ? 

Ans.  24. — When  I  first  saw  them  in  1850,  they  were  in  the  pos- 
session of  Don  Isidoro  De  La  Torre — this  was,  I  think,  in  March.  In 
the  latter  part  of  the  year  they  were  in  the  custody  of  Wm.  E.  Barron ; 
they  were  in  his  custody  from  the  last  of  June.  In  the  latter  part  of 
1850,  near  the  close  of  that  year,  I  had  them  in  our  office,  making 
translations,  up  to  sometime  in  the  latter  part  of  the  winter  or  spring 
of  1851. 

Ques.  25. — At  what  time  did  you  receive  the  papers,  and  when  did 
you  make  your  translations  ? 

Ans.  25. — I  can  not  remember  the  exact  time  that  I  received  them, 
but  think  it  was  in  the  latter  part  of  December,  1850.  I  am  not  cer- 
tain, it  may  have  been  in  November.  I  made  translations  at  New 
Almaden,  staying  there  most  of  the  time  for  several  weeks,  and  I 
remember  that  I  was  there  on  the  first  day  of  January,  1851.  This 
is  the  only  date  by  which  I  can  now  fix  the  time  that  I  was  engaged 
making  the  translation. 

Ques.  26. — Were  you  engaged  in  making  the  translations,  at  the 


337 

time  when  you  went  to  Richardson,  the  County  Recorder's  office,  to 
ask  for  the  papers,  and  were  you  then  staying  at  the  New  Almaden 
Mine? 

Ans.  26. — That  is  my  recollection. 

Ques.  27. — Whom  did  you  habitually  see,  when  staying  at  the  mine, 
of  the  persons  interested  in  the  mine,  or  engaged  about  it  ? 

Ans.  27. — Mr.  John  Young,  Mr.  Bester,  and  the  workmen  at  the 
Mine. 

Ques.  28. — Robert  Walkinshaw  ? 

Ans.  28. — Very  seldom.    He  did  not  then  often  go  to  the  Mine. 

Ques.  29. — Where  did  he  then  reside  ? 

Ans.  29. — A  couple  of  miles  north  of  the  Hacienda  of  the  Mine. 

Ques.  30. — Did  you  see  James  Alexander  Forbes? 

Ans.  30. — I  do  not  recollect  that  I  saw  him  during  that  time.  He 
very  seldom  went  to  the  Mine. 

Ques.  31. — Where  did  James  Alexander  Forbes  then  reside  ? 

Ans.  31. — In  Santa  Clara. 

Ques.  32. — How  far  from  the  Mine  ?  And  does  not  the  road  from 
the  Mine  to  San  Jose'  pass  through  or  near  Santa  Clara ;  and  does 
not  the  road  from  the  Mine  to  San  Francisco  pass  through  Santa 
Clara  ;  and  how  far  is  Santa  Clara  from  San  Jose'  ? 

Ans.  32. — About  fifteen  miles  from  the  Mine.  The  road  from  the 
Mine  to  San  Jose*  runs  no  nearer  to  Santa  Clara  than  when  at  San 
Jose*.  The  road  from  the  Mine  to  San  Francisco  does  pass  through 
Santa  Clara.     Santa  Clara  is  about  three  miles  from  San  Jose\ 

Ques.  33. — In  1850  and  1851  where  was  your  residence  and  place 
of  business  ? 

Ans.  33. — San  Francisco,  after  February,  1850.  Prior  to  that 
Jn  Monterey. 

Ques.  34. — Were  your  visits  to  the  mine  frequent  in  1850  and 
1851? 

Ans.  34. — They  were. 

Ques".  35. — What  were  your  relations  with  John  Young,  Robert 
Walkinshaw  aud  James  Alexander  Forbes,  in  1850  and  1851  ?  Did 
you  see  them  frequently,  and  about  how  frequently  ? 

Ans.  35. — My  relations  with  John  Young  were  intimate ;  with 
Walkinshaw  and  Forbes,  merely  that  of  acquaintance  and  recognition 
when  I  met  them  on  the  street.  I  saw  Mr.  Young  very  frequently, 
as  often  as  once  a  fortnight  generally.  I  very  seldom  saw  either 
Forbes  or  Walkinshaw. 

Ques  36. — Had  you  not  on  many  occasions  during  the  year  1850, 
and  January,  1851,  spoken  to  Mr.  Forbes  or  Walkinshaw,  on  the  sub- 
ject of  the  affairs  of  the  mine  ? 

Ans.  36. — I  think  very  seldom. 

Ques.  37. — Did  not  Young,  Forbes,  or  Walkinshaw,  suggest  to  you 


338 

that  you  might  find  in  the  office  of  the  County  Recorder  the  paper 
which  you  went  there  to  seek  ? 

Ans.  37. — It  is  possible  that  one  of  them  might  have  done  so,  but 
I  do  not  think  that  either  of  them  did,  for  the  reason  that  I  do  not 
think  Mr.  Young  had  any  knowledge  whatever  of  the  papers  of  the 
mine,  and  I  have  no  recollection  of  conversing  with  Mr.  Walkinshaw 
or  Mr.  Forbes,  at  that  time,  on  the  subject.  I  don't  remember  that 
at  that  time  either  of  them  ever  came  to  see  me,  or  that  I  ever  went 
to  see  them  at  that  time. 

I  do  not  recollect  to  have  been  in  the  houses  of  either  of  them  more 
than  once  or  twice  in  my  life. 

Ques.  38. — Was  not  Mr.  John  Young  interested  in  the  mine  in  the 
year  1850,  or  employed  about  it  in  a  responsible  position  by  the  New 
Almaden  Company  or  the  Lessees  ? 

Ans.  38. — I  do  not  think  he  was  ever  interested  in  the  mine.  He 
was  employed  by  the  Lessees  as  an  overseer  in  working  the  mine.  He 
was  the  principal  overseer  or  local  superintendant,  which  is  a  responsi- 
ble situation. 

Ques.  39. — Is  not  Mr.  John  Young  a  man  of  intelligence,  and  in 
whose  fidelity  to  his  employers  you  had  confidence  in  1850  ? 

Ans.  39. — Yes,  he  is. 

Ques.  40. — When  you  were  on  your  visits  to  the  New  Almaden 
mine,  did  you  not  lodge  in  the  same  house  with  Mr.  John  Young,  or 
very  near  him,  and  see  him  daily  and  nightly  ? 

Ans.  40. — Yes. 

Ques.  41. — Is  it  not  strange  under  such  circumstances  that  you 
had  never  communicated  to  Mr.  Young  any  knowledge  of  the  papers 
which  constitute  the  title  to  the  mine  ? 

Ans.  41. — I  probably  had  conversed  with  him  somewhat  in  relation 
to  them,  but  not  very  much,  for  I  do  not  think  he  had,  or  has,  ever 
read  the  papers,  or  has  any  particular  knowledge  on  the  subject.  He 
is  a  sailor  by  profession,  and  has  always  manifested  in  conversation  an 
ignorance  of  law  matters,  and  a  dislike  of  law  subjects  and  lawyers. 

Ques.  42. — What  knowledge  had  you  of  the  Spanish  language  in 
March  1850  ?  Could  you  read  it  ?    Could  you  read  Spanish  manuscripts  ? 

Ans.  42. — My  knowledge  of  the  Spanish  language  was  imperfect, 
but  I  could  read  and  translate  Spanish  manuscripts  as  well  or  better 
than  I  can  now,  being  then  more  in  practice  reading  Spanish. 

Ques.  43. — Was  it  in  March  1850,  that  you  saw  the  paper  of 
which  "  Exhibit  R.  No.  2."  is  a  copy,  and  the  Chabolla  copy,  and 
the  third  copy  made  in  Mexico,  of  all  of  which  you  have  spoken  ? 

Ans.  43. — I  think  it  was  in  March  1850,  that  I  saw  the  New  Al- 
maden papers  in  the  hands  of  Mr.  De  La  Torre,  and  that  I  then  saw 
one  or  more  of  the  copies  referred  to  ;  it  may  have  been  the  first  of 
April,  but  I  think  it  was  the  latter  part  of  March. 

Ques.  41. — Did  you  not  firstsee  all  of  those  copies  about  that  time  in 


339 

the  possespion  of  Mr.  De  La  Torre  ?  If  you  saw  any  one  of  them  in 
possession  of  any  body  else,  who  was  it  ? 

Ans.  44. — I  do  not  now  recollect  to  have  seen  other  copies  than  the 
three  I  have  mentioned,  or  to  have  seen  these  except  among  the  New 
Almaden  papers,  which  I  saw  at  that  time  in  the  possession  of  Mr. 
De  La  Torre,  but  I  cannot  say  that  all  of  these  were  then  among  those 
papers,  or  positively  that  either  one  of  them,  but  I  remember  seeing 
a  copy  or  copies  of  the  denouncement  and  juridical  possession  of  the 
mine  at  that  time,  and  was  reading  it  over  with  Mr.  De  La  Torre. 

Ques.  45. — Did  you  understand  it  when  you  read  it  ?  Did  you  read 
all  the  papers  and  understand  them  ? 

Ans.  45. — I  understood  the  general  purport  of  the  papers  and  my 
recollection  is  that  I  read  all  those  relating  to  Castillaro's  title.  I 
think  I  examined  papers  connected  with  contracts  and  transfers  of 
shares,  but  I  do  not  think  that  I  read  the  latter  all  through. 

Ques.  46. — Was  not  Mr.  De  La  Torre  the  same  person  whom  you 
have  said  in  1850  and  1851,  was  a  member  of  the  new  Almaden  com- 
pany, and  one  of  the  lessees  of  the  mine  ? 

Ans.  46. — He  was. 

Ques.  47. — Did  he  not  then  reside  in  the  City  of  Mexico,  or  some- 
where in  the  Republic  of  Mexico  ? 

Ans.  47. — I  think  that  he  resided  either  in  Mazatlan  or  the  City  of 
Mexico,  but  having  no  family,  he  may  not  have  had  any  fixed  place 
of  residence.     He  was  a  partner  in  a  house  in  Mexico. 

Ques.  48. — The  house  of  Mr.  De  La  Torre  was  reputed  to  be  very 
wealthy,  was  it  not  ? 

Ans.  48. — It  was  reputed  to  be  very  wealthy. 

(Question  and  answer  objected  to  by  Attorney  for  Claimant,  on  the 
ground  of  irrelevancy.) 

Ques.  49. — When  did  he  arrive  in  California  ?  When  did  he  leave 
this  State  ?  and  with  whom  did  he  leave  the  New  Almaden  papers  ? 

Ans.  49. — I  first  saw  him  in  California  in  the  town  of  San  Jose",  I 
think  in  March  1850.  I  think  he  had  arrived  in  California  only  a 
very  short  time  before.  He  left  the  State  I  think  on  the  first  of  July 
1850,  and  left  the  papers  in  charge  of  Wm.  E.  Barron,  as  I  have 
before  stated,  and  from  whom  they  passed  to  me,  as  I  have  before 
stated. 

Ques.  50. — Have  you  retained  possession  of  those  papers  from  that 
time  to  the  present  ? 

Ans.  50. — I  have  not.  They  have  been  deposited  a  part  of  the 
time  in  the  safe  of  Halleck,  Peachy  &  Billings,  and  a  part  of  the  time 
in  the  vault  of  Bolton  &  Barron.  A  part  of  the  time  the  key  of  the 
box  containing  them  has  been  in  my  possession,  a  part  of  the  time  in 


340 

Mr.  Peachy's  possession,  and  a  part  of  the  time  in  Mr.  Wm.  E.  Bar- 
ron's possession. 

Ques.  51. — Where  are  they  now  ? 

Ans.  51. — A  part  of  them  are  in  the  office  of  the  Surveyor  Gen- 
eral, coming  from  the  Land  Commission.  Most  of  them  in  the  vault 
of  Bolton  &  Barron.  Some  of  them  I  thtnk  are  in  the  safe  of  Hal- 
leck,  Peachy  &  Billings. 

Ques.  52. — Have  you  not  always  had,  and  still  have  access  to  them 
when  you  desire  it  ? 

Ans.  52. — I  have. 

Ques.  53. — Will  you  produce  and  file  with  your  deposition  the  Cha- 
bolla  copy,  and  the  copy  made  in  Mexico,  of  the  papers  of  denounce 
ment  and  juridical  possossion  ? 

Ans.  53. — I  will  do  so  if  requested,  and  the  Counsel  and  Mr. 
Barron  will  consent  to  leave  the  papers  on  file. 

(The  Counsel  for  the  United  States  requires  the  production  of  the 
Chabolla  copy,  and  of  the  copy  made  in  Mexico,  of  papers  of  de- 
nouncement and  juridical  possession,  of  which  the  witness  has  tes- 
tified.) 

Ques.  54. — In  September,  Octeber,  November  and  December,  of 
the  year  1850,  where  were  the  papers  of  denouncement  and  juridical 
possession  of  the  mine  of  New  Almaden,  being  the  same  paper  pro- 
ducedby  Mr.  Houghton  ? 

Ans.  54. — I  do  not  know. 

Ques.  55. — Were  they  not  to  the  best  of  your  knowledge  and  be- 
lief in  Mexico  ? 

Ans.  55. — I  have  no  knowledge  of  their  being  in  Mexico,  or  of 
where  they  were.     My  belief  is  that  they  were  in  San  Jose'. 

Ques.  56. — Have  you  a  pretty  good  memory  ? 

Ans.  56. — I  have  a  pretty  good  memory  of  occurrences  and  of  per- 
sons, but  not  a  very  good  memory  for  names  or  dates. 

Ques.  57. — During  the  time  of  which  I  have  just  enquired,  did 
you  not  verily  believe  that  they  were  in  Mexico  ? 

Ans.  57. — I  did  not.  I  had  no  reason  to  believe  that  they  were  in 
Mexico,  and  my  reasons  for  believing  that  they  were  in  San  Josd  are, 
that  I  found  them  there  in  1851,  as  I  have  stated. 

Ques.  58. — It  is  now  seven  years  since  the  period  of  which  I  have 
questioned  you.  The  human  memory  is  treacherous.  I  therefore  de- 
sire you  to  reflect  well  upon  the  answer  you  have  just  given.  Do  you 
answer  in  the  same  manner  ? 

Ans.  58. — I  have  no  change  to  make  to  my  answer,  except  to  say, 
as  I  have  before  said,  that  I  cannot  say  positively  that  the  paper  pro- 


341 

duced  by  Mr.  Houghton,  is  the  same  found  in  Mr.  Belden's  office.  I 
believe  it  to  be  the  same,  as  I  have  before  stated. 

Ques.  59. — You  regard  the  paper  which  you  found  in  the  office  of 
Belden  as  the  original  denouncement  and  juridical  possession  of  the 
mine  of  New  Almaden,  do  you  not  ? 

Ans.  59. — I  do. 

Ques.  60. — In  reference  to  that  paper  you  then  repeat  the  answer 
which  you  have  given  above,  do  you  ? 

Ans.  60. — I  do. 

Ques.  61. — Did  you  not  in  the  month  of  December,  1850,  declare 
on  oath,  in  a  Court  of  Justice,  that  the  original  denouncement  and  ju- 
ridical possession  of  the  mine  was  at  that  time  in  Mexico  ? 

Ans.  61. — I  may  have  dene  so.  I  had  copies  or  a  copy  of  that 
original  denouncement  and  possession,  and  may  have  supposed  then 
that  the  original,  which  is  usually  delivered  to  the  parties,  was  in  Mex- 
ico. I  understand,  and  always  have  understood  it  to  be  the  practice 
of  Mexican  Alcaldes,  to  make  two  originals  of  their  judicial  acts,  one 
of  which  is  made  of  record  in, their  office,  and  the  other  delivered  to 
the  parties  interested.  I  probably  then  supposed,  as  I  have  since, 
that  a  duplicate  original  had  been  given  to  Castillero  and  taken  to 
Mexico.  I  remember  to  have  written  to  Mexico  to  have  such  original 
sent  to  California,  to  be  used  in  the  litigation  then  pending. 

Ques.  62. — Will  you  look  at  the  20th  page  of  the  document  now 
handed  to  you,  being  the  "  certified  transcript  from  the  3d  Judicial 
District  Court,"  filed  in  this  cause  on  21st  August,  1857,  and  read  the 
paper  beginning  at  the  bottom  of  that  page,  and  say  whether  the 
same  is  or  is  not  your  affidavit  ? 

Ans.  62. — I  have  read  the  paper  referred  to  and  think  it  is  a  copy 
of  the  affidavit  sworn  to  by  me  at  the  time  indicated  in  the  paper  ;  I 
think  the  affidavit  was  drawn  by  Mr.  Peachy. 

Ques.  63. — Look  at  the  10th  page  of  the  same  document,  read 
what  is  there  written,  and  say  whether  or  not  your  affidavit  was  made 
in  answer  to  that  demand  ? 

Ans.  63. — I  think  it  was. 

Ques.  64. — What  is  the  date  of  your  affidavit,  and  what  the  date 
of  the  demand  ? 

Ans.  64. — The  date  of  the  demand  as  it  appears  upon  this  paper, 
is  the  13th  Sept.  1850.  And  the  affidavit  purports  to  have  been  made 
the  23d  December,  1850. 

Ques.  65. — Would  not  the  production  in  Court  of  the  original, 
which  you  supposed  had  been  retained  by  the  Alcalde,  have  in  every 
respect  as  fully  satisfied  that  demand,  as  could  the  production  of  the 
other  original,  which  you  suppose  had  been  carried  to  Mexico  ? 

Ans  65. — I  do  not  remember  what  was  the  supposition  at  that  time. 
I  do  not  now  in  looking  over  the  demand,  think  that  it  would.     One  I 


342 

regard  as  a  record  of  title,  and  the  other  as  a  title  paper  delivered  to" 
the  party.  I  regard  the  demand  as  for  the  latter.  Only  copies  of  these 
papers,  to  the  best  of  my  recollection,  were  in  the  hands  of  the 
Counsel  in  San  Francisco,  certified  to,  if  I  remember  aright,  by  No- 
taries Public  in  Mexico,  and  under  that  demand  they  were  required  to 
produce  the  originals. 

Ques  66. — Then  you  do  not  regard  this  paper  produced  by  S.  0. 
Houghton  as  a  title  paper  of  the  claimant  ?  Would  it  not  serve  as 
well  for  a  title  paper  in  one  suit  as  in  another  ? 

(Question  objected  to  by  Attorney  for  Claimant  on  the  gronnd  that 
the  questions  asks  the  witness'  opinion  upon  a  matter  of  law.) 

Ans.  66. — I  do  not  regard  it  as  the  title  paper  which  is  usually 
delivered  to  the  party,  and  therefore  as  not  being  the  party's  title 
paper.  I  regard  it  as  the  original  record  of  a  judicial  act,  and  as 
having  in  Mexican  law  the  same  force  and  effect  as  the  one  delivered 
to  the  party,  and  sometimes  even  of  higher  effect  where  the  original 
which  is  delivered  to  the  party  is  impeached.  I  understand  that,  by 
Mexican  law,  any  one  impeaching  the  original  that  is  delivered 
to  the  parties  may  bring  forward  the  record  for  that  purpose.  That 
in  such  a  case  the  record  is  the  higher  authority,  that  otherwise  they 
are  equal. 

Ques.  67. — Do  you  not  think  this  paper  under  Mexican,  or  any 
other  law,  would  have  had  as  much  effect  in  1850  as  in  1857  ? 

(Question  objected  to  on  the  same  grounds  as  to  the  preceding 
question.) 

Ans.  67. — I  do,  of  course. 

Ques.  68. — What  paper  in  this  case  do  you  regard  as  the  title 
paper  of  the  claimant  ? 

(Question  objected  to  on  the  same  grounds  as  to  the  preceding 
question.) 

Ans.  68. — I  regard  several  papers  in  this  case  as  title  papers. 
Ques.  69. — I  mean  with  reference  to  the  denouncement  and  juridi- 
cal possession  ? 

(Objected  to  as  before.) 

Ans.  69. — I  regard  the  original  record  as  a  title  paper,  and  also 
any  duly  certified  copy  of  that  original  taken  by  an  officer  properly 
in  charge  of  it.     I  speak  now  of  what  I  understand  constitutes  title 


343 

papers  in  Mexican  law.  I  understand  the  duplicate  original  usually 
delivered  at  the  time  of  the  act. or  a  "  testimonio,"  or  certified  copy 
copy  afterwards  made,  as  equally  a  title. 

Ques.  70. — Which  paper  in  this  case  is  a  duplicate  original,  and 
which  the  "  testimonio     of  which  you  speak  ? 

Ans.  70. — I  do  not  understand  that  there  is  any  duplicate  original 
in  this  case  ;  I  never  have  seen  one,  and  do  not  know  whether  or  not 
one  was  issued  to  Castillero.  I  supposed  that  one  had  been  issued, 
and  have  written  to  Mr.  De  La  Torre  and  parties  in  Mexico  to  ascer- 
tain if  there  was  not  one  there,  and  to  send  it  to  myself  or  the  coun- 
sel in  this  case.  I  wrote  to  that  eiFect  in  1850.  My  recollection  now 
is  that  the  letters  written  at  that  time  were  never  received  by  the 
parties  to  whom  they  were  addressed  ;  that  is,  I  believe  so. 

(Attorney  for  United  States  withdraws  the  demand  heretofore 
made  to  this  witness  for  the  production  of  the  Chaballa  Copy  and  of 
the  copy  made  in  Mexico  of  papers  of  Denouncement  and  Juridical 
possession  of  which  the  witness  has  testified.) 

Ques.  71. — You  have  not  yet  answered  which  particular  paper  in 
the  case  you  regard  as  the  testimonio  you  have  described  ? 

(Objected  to  as  before.) 

Ans.  71. — I  regard  "  Exhibit  R.,  No.  2,"  before  referred  to,  as  a 
traced  copy  of  a  paper  which  would  be  called  a  testimonio. 

Examination  adjourned  until  to-morrow,  Oct,  27,  at  11,  A.  M., 

1857. 

San  Francisco,  Oct.  27, 11,  A.  M. 

Examination  of  H.  W.  Halleck,  a  Witness  Produced  on  Behalf 
of  the  Claimant,  continued. 

Present. — U.  S.  District  Attorney,  by  A.  P.  Crittenden ;  A.  C. 
Peachy,  for  Claimants. 

Cross-Examination  Continued. 

Questions  by  U.  S.  Attorney. 

Ques.  72. — When  you  found  the  paper  in  the  office  of  Belden, 
were  you  not  greatly  astonished,  and  did  you  not  speak  of  it  to  the 
parties  interested  in  the  mine  as  a  great  discovery  ? 


344 

Ans.  72. — I  do  not  remember  that  I  was  astonished.  I  probably 
spoke  of  it  to  Mr.  Barron,  and  Messrs.  Peachy  &  Billings.  Whether  I 
did  to  others  or  not,  I  do  not  remember.  I  may  have  done  so.  I  do 
not  think  I  spoke  of  it  as  a  great  discovery. 

Ques.  73. — Nor  as  a  remarkable,  and  most  unexpected  occurrence  ? 

Ans.  73. — I  do  not  remember  to  have  spoken  of  it  in  such  a  way, 
nor  to  have  regarded  it  as  such.  I  considered  it  an  important  record 
as  evidence  of  title. 

Ques.  74. — Did  the  persons  interested  in  the  mine  express  aston- 
ishment or  surprise  at  the  discovery  of  that  paper,  or  in  any  manner 
evince  that  they  regarded  it  as  a  remarkable  and  unexpected  occur- 
rence ? 

Ans.  74. — I  do  not  remember  of  conversing  with  any  of  them  on 
the  subject  further  than  I  believe  I  told  Mr.  Barron  and  Mr.  Peachy 
that  there  was  an  original  record  which  I  had  had  transferred  to  the 
Recorder's  office.  I  have  no  distinct  recollection  of  any  particular 
conversation  other  than  telling  Mr.  Peachy  when  I  left  the  State,  or 
reminding  him  of  there  being  a  record  in  San  Josd,  in  case  he  should 
want  to  use  it  before  the  Land  Commission.  I  have  no  doubt  that  I 
told  him  and  Mr.  Barron,  at  the  time  that  I  discovered  it  in  San  Jose', 
of  the  fact. 

Ques.  75. — Do  you  not  positively  remember  that  you  did  tell  them 
the  fact  as  soon  as  you  saw  them,  after  the  discovery  ? 

Ans.  75. — I  am  pretty  confident  that  I  did,  but  seeing  them  almost 
every  day,  and  having  conversed  with  them  so  often  on  matters  con- 
nected with  the  mine,  that  I  do  not  now  recall  to  memory  the  partic- 
ular circumstance  and  time  of  telling  them. 

Ques.  76. — Is  your  recollection  and  impression  of  having  told  them 
of  this  discovery  in  1851,  immediately  after  it  was  made,  supported 
and  confirmed  by  their  recollections  ? 

Ans.  76. — I  have  not  asked  either  of  them,  and  do  not  know  what 
their  recollections  are. 

Ques.  77. — You  have  of  course  seen  Mr.  Peachy  or  Mr.  Barron, 
one  or  both,  since  your  examination  yesterday  ? 

Ans.  77. — I  have  seen  them  both.     I  see  Mr.  Peachy  now. 

Ques.  78. — Did  you  obtain  from  Mr.  Richardson,  the  Recorder, 
the  certified  copy  you  desired  ? 

Ans.  78. — My  recollection  is  that  I  did. 

Ques.  79. — What  did  you  want  with  it  ? 

Ans.  79. — I  was  translating  the  papers  connected  with  the  mining 
title  for  Mr.  Peachy' s  use,  and  also  for  the  purpose  of  sending  Mr. 
De  La  Torre  copies  of  the  translations.  Mr.  Robert  Greenhow  was 
employed  by  Mr.  Barron  about  that  time,  or  after  that  time,  to  look 
over  the  translations  with  me  and  correct  them,  and  I  think  made 
separate  translations  of  a  portion. 


345 

Ques.  80.— As  you  already  had  three  copies  in  a  tin  box,  why  did 
you  want  a  fourth  to  make  your  translations  ? 

Ans.  80. — I  have  not  stated  that  we  had  three  copies  ;  I  have  no 
recollection  of  having  seen  at  that  time  more  than  one  of  the  three 
which  I  described,  but  which  one,  or  whether  more  than  one,  I  do  not 
remember. 

Ques.  81. — Will  you  look  at  your  43d  and  44th  answers  of  your 
cross-examination,  and  say  whether  you  have  not  there  stated  that  the 
only  recollection  you  have  of  the  first  time  when  you  saw  any  or  all 
of  these  three  copies,  or  any  other  copies,  of  a  denouncement,  and 
juridical  possession,  was  in  the  possession  of  Mr.  De  La  Torre,  in 
March  or  April  of  the  year  1850  ? 

Ans.  81. — I  have  looked  at  my  answers  43d  and  44th  ;  I  do  not 
think  my  answers  are  as  stated  in  the  question,  as  I  understand  them, 
and  as  I  think  I  meant  to  say.  They  mean  this,  that  in  March  or 
April,  1850,  I  saw  among  the  New  Almaden  papers  in  the  hands  of 
Mr.  De  La  Torre,  a  copy  or  copies  of  the  denouncement  and  juridical 
possession  of  New  Almaden,  but  whether  or  not  it  was  one  of  the 
three  mentioned,  I  could  not  remember,  otherwise  than  I  had  no 
recollection  of  seeing  other  than  these  three  copies  mentioned  among 
such  papers.  I  did  not  mean  to  be  understood  that  I  then  saw  all 
the  New  Almaden  papers,  or  all  three  of  these  copies.  Many  papers 
were  afterwards  received  from  Mexico,  and  put  in  the  same  tin  box. 

Ques.  82. — I  now  repeat ; — have  you  any  recollection  whatever  of 
first  seeing  these  three  copies,  or  either  of  them,  in  any  other  place, 
or  at  any  other  time  ? 

Ans.  82. — I  remember  to  have  seen  them  among  the  New  Almaden 
papers  on  various  occasions,  but  cannot  remember  when  I  first  saw 
them  all,  or  any  one  of  them,  otherwise  than  that  a  copy,  or  paper 
purporting  to  be  a  copy,  was  shown  to  me  and  examined  by  me  in 
March  or  April,  1850.  I  remember  it  from  the  fact  that  Mr.  De  La 
Torre  wished  me  to  purchase  an  interest,  and  showed  the  papers  to 
me,  that  I  might  examine  them  with  reference  to  the  title. 

Ques.  83. — Please  answer  the  82d  question  Yes,  or  No. 

Ans.  ~83. — I  must  answer  as  I  already  have  done,  that  I  do  not 
remember  the  time  when  I  first  saw  either  of  them. 

Ques.  84. — Will  you  answer  Yes  or  No,  without  qualification  ? 

Ans.  84. — I  answer  No,  if  I  fully  understand  the  purport  of  the 
question. 

Ques.  85. — Having  already  one  copy  certainly,  and  two  others  with 
no  more  doubt  than  appears  in  your  answers  43,  44,  and  those  just 
made,  what  necessity  had  you  for  any  other  copy  in  making  your 
translations  ? 

Ans.  85. — I  do  not  remember  of  any  particular  necessity.  My 
v*3ollection  however  is  that  Mr.  Peachy  at  that  time,  or  before,  had 

30 


346 

requested  me  to  collect,  and  translate,  all  papers  I  could  find  con- 
nected with  the  Mine,  for  his  use  as  Counsel ;  and  I  now  think  it  prob- 
able that  I  searched  in  San  Jose'  for  papers  for  that  purpose. 

Ques.  86. — Why  could  you  not  have  made  the  translations  which 
Mr.  Peachy  wanted,  from*  the  copy,  or  copies,  which  you  already 
had,  without  going  to  the  trouble  of  the  search  which  you  made,  to 
get  another  copy  of  the  same  documents  ? 

Ans.  86. — I  do  not  remember  otherwise,  than  that  Mr.  Peachy 
wanted  translations  of  all  papers,  that  could  be  found,  connected  with 
the  Mine.  He  may  not  at  that  time  have  had  either  the  Weekes 
copy,  or  the  Chabolla  copy,  of  which  I  have  spoken,  or  in  addition  to 
them,  he  may  have  wanted  translations  of  whatever  records  there 
might  be  in  San  Jose' ;  I  do  not  now  remember  the  circumstances  parti- 
cularly. It  is  very  possible  that  he  requested  me  to  examine  in  San 
Jose'  for  any  records  that  might  be  found. 

Ques.  87. — You  have  not  answered  my  question.  I  did  not  ask 
you  what  copy  or  copies  Mr.  Peachy  may  have  had,  or  if  he  had  any ; 
but  why,  having  one  or  more  copies  yourself,  you  should  have  put 
yourself  to  the  trouble  of  such  a  search  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining 
still  another  copy  from  which  to  make  your  translations  for  Mr. 
Peachy  ? 

Ans.  87. — I  can  give  no  other  reasons  than  those  already  men- 
tioned, for  I  do  not  remember  any  other. 

Ques.  88. — Is  it  anything  more  than  a  guess  that  you  wanted  that 
copy  for  the  purpose  of  making  translations  at  all  ? 

Ans.  88. — It  is  not  a  guess.  It  is  my  present  recollection  of  what 
occurred  years  ago. 

Ques.  89. — What  became  of  the  copy  which  you  obtained  from 
Richardson  ? 

Ans.  89. — I  do  not  remember  positively,  but  my  recollection  is  that 
it  was  burned,  with  all  the  copies  and  translations  of  papers  which  I 
had  made,  and  which  Mr.  Greenhow  had  made,  and  with  some  others, 
which  I  had  received  from  Mexico,  when  our  office,  books,  and  papers 
were  burned  in  May,  1851. 

Ques.  90. — Were  all  the  papers  of  the  New  Almaden  Mine  burned 
at  that  time  ? 

Ans.  90. — They  were  not.  Most  of  them  were  in  the  vault  of 
Bolton  &  Barron ;  those  in  our  office  were  all  burned. 

Ques.  91. — Have  those  which  were  burned  been  since  supplied  ? 

Ans.  91. — I  think  most  of  the  papers  burned  were  copies  and  trans- 
lations of  papers  in  Bolton  &  Barron's  vault.  I  remember  one  paper, 
a  map,  which  was  burned  in  our  office,  and  of  which  duplicates  were 
afterwards  procured  from  Mexico. 

Ques.  92. — When  you  say  the  papers  burned  were  copies  of  others 


347 

in  the  vault  of  Bolton  &  Barron,  do  you  mean  to  include  that  copy 
which  you  obtained  from  Richardson  ? 

Ans.  92. — I  mean  to  say  that  I  think  that  copy  was  burned.  And 
I  do  not  remember  that  Bolton  &  Barron  had  in  their  vault  a  copy  of 
the  same  paper,  or  the  original.  I  think  they  had  a  copy  or  copies 
of  the  denouncement  and  juridical  possession,  but  not  one  made  by 
Mr.   Richardson,  nor  the  original  denouncement  itself. 

Ques.  93. — You  say  you  think ;    do  you  mean  you  are  not  certain  ? 

Ans.  93. — I  mean  that  I  never  saw  it  there,  and  never  heard  of  its 
being  there. 

Ques.  94. — Are  you  at  all  certain  that  that  copy  was  burned  at  that 
time,  or  is  it  a  mere  guess  ? 

Ans.  94. — I  am  not  certain,  nor  is  it  a  mere  guess.  My  recollec- 
tion is  that  it  was  burned.  If  my  memory  serves  me  right,  I  had  a 
copy  of  it,  and  that  it  was  burned  with  my  other  papers,  for  I  have 
no  recollection  of  seeing  it  after  the  fire,  and  I  know  that  all  the  pa- 
pers connected  with  New  Almaden  which  I  had  in  my  possession  at 
that  time,  were  burned. 

Ques.  95. — Of  the  four  copies  of  which  you  have  spoken,  to  wit, — 
the  Weekes  copy,  the  Chabolla  copy,  the  copy  made  in  Mexico  and 
Richardson's  copy,  the  last  only  was  burned  ? 

Ans.  95. — I  have  seen  the  first  three  since  the  fire,  but  do  not 
remember  to  have  seen  the  other.  My  recollection  is  that  it  was 
burned. 

Ques.  96. — May  it  not  have  been  sent  to  Mexico  before  the  fire  ? 

Ans.  96. — I  have  no  recollection  of  its  ever  having  been  sent  to 
Mexico.     If  it  had  been,  I  think  I  should  remember  it. 

Ques.  97. — Do  you  not  remember  saying,  in  conversation,  that  you 
procured  that  copy  for  the  purpose  of  sending  it  to  Mexico,  or  of 
using  it  in  Court  on  some  trial  ? 

Ans.  97. — I  may  have  said  in  conversation  that  it  was  procured  to 
be  used  in  some  trial ;  I  do  not  think  I  could  ever  have  said  that  it 
was  procured  to  send  to  Mexico.  I  very  probably  have  said  that  it 
was  procured  to  send  the  translation  and  copy  of  it  to  Mr.  De  La 
Torre  in  Mexico.  As  I  remember  it  was  my  intention  in  making  these 
translations  to  send  him  copies  of  the  translations  and  of  the  Spanish 
translated. 

Ques.  98. — As  at  the  time  when  you  were  engaged  in  making  trans- 
lations you  believed  that  the  parties  in  Mexico  held  the  duplicate  ori- 
ginal, as  you  have  already  testified ;  your  letters  which  you  had 
written,  asking  for  that  duplicate  original,  having  miscarried  as  you 
supposed,  from  receiving  no  answer  to  the  same,  and  as  good  inter- 
preters abound  in  Mexico,  and  several  of  the  persons  most  largely 
interested  are  Englishmen  by  birth,  long  established  in  Mexico,  and 
undoubtedly  entirely  familiar  with  both  languages,  what  motive  could 


348 

you  have  had  for  desiring  to  send,  or  Mr.  De  La  Torre  for  desiring 
to  receive  from  California,  a  mere  copy  of  that  duplicate  original,  and 
an  English  translation  of  the  same  ? 

Ans.  98. — I  was  not  then  acquainted  with  any  of  the  owners  in 
Mexico,  except  Mr.  De  La  Torre,  nor  was  I  in  correspondence  with 
any  of  them.  My  recollection  of  the  letters  written  to  Mexico  for 
the  original  papers  connected  with  the  juridical  possession  to  others 
than  to  Mr.  De  La  Torre,  were  written  by  Mr.  Barron,  and  that  what 
I  wrote  to  Mr.  De  La  Torre  on  that  subject  was  from  a  memorandum 
furnished  me  by  Mr.  Peachy.  I  do  not  remember  that  Mr.  De  La 
Torre  asked  for  a  copy  or  translation  of  any  particular  paper.  I  re- 
member his  proposing  to  me  to  translate  the  papers,  and  I  think  with 
reference  to  his  selling  stock  in  the  Mine.  The  particular  object  of 
sending  him  copies  and  translations  at  the  time  indicated,  was  for  the 
purpose  of  his  taking  the  advice  of  counsel  in  the  United  States  with 
respect  to  litigation  then  pending. 

Ques.  99. — Did  it  not  occur  to  you  that  he  might  sell  stock  and 
take  advice  of  counsel,  as  well  upon  his  duplicate  original  and  upon 
translations  which  he  could  make  himself,  as  upon  the  copy  and  trans- 
lation that  you  were  sending  him  ? 

Ans.  99. — I  do  not  remember  what  occurred  to  me  at  the  time. 
As  Mr.  De  La  Torre  had  recently  become  interested  in  the  Mine  and 
had  left  copies  of  papers  connected  with  the  Mine  here,  I  may  have 
thought  that  he  had  himself  had  none  in  Mexico.  I  cannot  now  say 
what  I  thought  at  the  time. 

Ques.  100. — Did  you  not  suppose  that  he  had  obtained  or  could 
obtain  this  most  valuable  of  all,  of  the  same  person  or  persons,  from 
whom  he  got  the  tin  box  of  papers,  which  he  brought  to  California  and 
left  here  ?  And  if  not,  why  was  it,  that  you  were  writing  to  him  for 
it,  and  Mr.  Win.  E.  Barron,  at  the  same  time,  writing  to  others  for  it? 

Ans.  100. — I  cannot  now  say  what  I  supposed  at  that  time.  My 
recollection  is  that  all  of  the  papers  which  Mr.  De  La  Torre  had  here 
were  copies.  I  cannot  now  remember  the  circumstances  of  my  writ- 
ing to  him  about  it,  otherwise  than  what  I  have  usually  written  to 
Mexico  about  papers  has  been  on  a  memorandum  or  copying  a  memo- 
randum, given  to  me  by  Mr.  Peachy,  the  Counsel.  Having  written  often 
from  memoranda  by  Mr.  Peachy,  I  cannot  remember  particularly  what 
was  written  at  the  time,  nor  the  supposition  I  may  have  had  then,  as 
alluded  to  in  the  question. 

Ques.  101. — Did  it  not  look  singular  that  you  should  furnish  copies 
for  him  to  sell  stock  and  consult  Counsel  on,  and  he  should  furnish  you 
originals  to  defend  his  title  with,  and  all  at  the  same  time  ? 

Ans.  101. — I  do  not  think  it  did.  His  suggestion  or  request  to  me 
to  make  translations  in  California  was,  if  I  remember  right,  with  refer- 
ence to  his  selling  stock  here  and  in  New  York.     Moreover,  Mr.  De 


349 

La  Torre  was  but  one  of  the  parties  interested  in  the  Mine,  and  I 
could  not  well  have  supposed  that  he  had,  from  his  suggestion,  all  the 
papers  connected  with  it. 

Ques.  102. — Do  you  consider  that  answer  any  explanation  ? 

Ans.  102. — Explanation  of  what  ? 

Ques.  103. — I  mean  do  you  consider  that  answer  any  explanation 
of  the  circumstances  stated  in  my  question  101,  and  of  which  circum- 
stances I  called  for  an  explanation  in  that  question  ? 

Ans.  103. — I  regard  the  question  as  asking  my  opinion,  which  I 
answered  by  the  words,  u  I  do  not  think  it  did." 

Ques.  104. — About  what  number  or  quantity  of  papers,  which  you 
call  the  New  Almaden  papers,  did  Mr.  De  La  Torre  bring  from 
Mexico  ? 

Ans.  104. — I  should  think  ten  or  fifteen  documents  ;  but  as  other 
documents  were  afterwards  received  from  Mexico  by  Mr.  Barron,  and 
put  with  those  left  by  Mr.  De  La  Torre,  some  of  which  were  duplicate 
copies  of  those  left  by  him,  I  cannot  remember  them  sufficiently  well 
to  distinguish  in  all  cases,  nor  perhaps  in  most  cases,  between  those  I 
first  saw  in  his  hands  and  those  which  I  have  subsequently  seen. 

Ques.  105. — What  additional  papers,  not  duplicates, — I  mean  what 
number  or  quantity  of  additional  papers,  not  duplicates,  have  since 
been  received  here  ;  by  whom  sent ;  at  what  time  ;  and  what  number 
or  quantity  at  a  time  ? 

(Question  objected  to  by  Att'y  for  claimant,  on  the  ground  that  it 
is  examining  the  witness  upon  a  point  on  which  he  was  not  examined 
in  his  examination  in  chief.) 

Ans.  105. — I  am  unable  to  answer  the  question,  as  to  the  quantity, 
or  times  ;  I  think  all  of  them  were  received  by  Mr.  Barron  ;  I  have 
no  recollection  of  any  one  of  them  being  sent  to  me.  I  think  all  or 
most  were  sent  to  him,  by,  or  through  the  house  of  Barron,  Forbes  & 
Co.,  and  Mr.  E.  Barron  in  Mexico.  I  think  they  have  been  received 
by  him  on  several  different  occasions,  and  at  several  different  times. 

Ques.  106. — Among  all  these  papers,  brought  or  sent  on  different 
occasions  during  the  last  saven  years,  is  it  not  strange  that  you  have 
never  seen  the  duplicate  original  which  you  consider  the  true  title  pa- 
per of  the  claimants,  and  for  which  you  suppose  you  must  have  been 
writing,  about  the  time  you  made  your  affidavit  in  1850  (December,) 
and  of  the  existence  of  which,  or  that  such  paper  ever  was  issued, 
you  have  to  this  day  no  knowledge,  as  you  have  testified  already  ? 

(Question  objected  to  on  the  ground  that  it  asks  the  witness*  opin- 
ion in  regard  to  the  strangeness  of  a  certain  state  of  facts  ;  because  it 
is  immaterial,  irrelevant  and  incompetent.) 


350 

Ans.  106 — I  do  not  think  it  strange  that  I  have  never  seen  it  among 
those  papers,  because  I  think  I  should  have  seen  it  if  it  had  been  there. 
I  have  thought  it  strange  that  no  such  document  has  been  found  or 
produced,  for  I  have  supposed  that  such  a  document  must  have  existed. 

Ques.  107 — Did  you  know  J.  M.  Jones,  whose  name  is  signed  as 
attorney  to  the  demand  for  the  production  of  the  original  denounce- 
ment and  juridical  possession  of  the  mine,  to  which  your  affidavit  was 
an  answer,  the  said  demand  being  that  made  on  the  13th  September, 
1850,  and  your  affidavit  and  reply  dated  2'3d  December,  1850, 
concerning  both  of  which  you  were  examined  and  testified  on  yesterday  ? 

Ans.  107—1  did. 

Ques.  108 — Did  you  not  become  very  well  acquainted  wit  him  as 
early  as  September,  1S49,  when  you  were  both  members  of  the  Con- 
vention which  formed  the  State  Constitution  ? 

Ans.  108 — I  first  knew  him  as  a  member  of  the  Convention  alluded 
to,  but  never  became  very  well  acquainted  with  him  ;  our  acquaintance 
was  never  more  than  a  speaking  acquaintance  ;  he  is  now  dead. 

Ques.  109 — What  was  Mr.  Jones'  character  for  diligence,  shrewd- 
ness, and  general  capacity,  in  his  profession  ? 

Ans.  109 — I  have  generally  heard  him  spoken  of  as  a  shrewd  law- 
yer ;  with  respect  to  diligence  and  capacity,  I  do  not  remember  to 
have  heard  his  character  discussed  sufficiently  to  form  an  estimate  of 
it  in  my  own  mind. 

Ques.  110 — Do  you  not  know  that  Mr.  Jones  was  remarkably  dili- 
gent, and  considered  of  very  good  capacity  ? 

Ans.  110 — I  was  not  sufficiently  acquainted  with  Mr.  Jones  to 
judge  either  of  his  diligence  or  capacity  otherwise  than  as  a  debater  in 
the  Convention. 

Ques.  Ill — Is  he  not  the  same  person  who  was  counsel  for  James 
Alexander  Forbes,  of  Santa  Clara,  in  a  suit  brought  against  him  by 
Robert  Walkinshaw,  in  the  latter  part  of  August  or  in  September, 
1849,  and  in  which  Horace  Hawes  was  attorney  for  Walkinshaw,  before 
Alcalde  May,  of  San  Josd,  and  the  same  person  who  was  attorney  for 
James  Alexander  Forbes,  et  als.,  of  the  parties  then  interested  in  the 
mine,  in  a  proceeding  .of  the  said  Hawes  denouncing  the  said  mine  be- 
fore the  Alcalde  of  San  Josd,  which  proceeding  in  denouncement  was 
pending  at  the  same  time  with  the  suit  brought  by  Walkinshaw  against 
Forbes  as  above  stated,  and  which  said  suit  was  for  the  possession  of 
the  mine  ? 

Have  you  not  learned  that  he  was,  from  himself,  from  Forbes,  or 
Walkinshaw,  or  others  interested  in  the  mine,  or  from  any  other  per- 
son, or  in  any  other  manner  ? 

(So  much  of  the  preceding  as  asks  the  witness  what  he  has  heard 
other  people  say,  objected  to  by  attorney  for  claimant,  on  the  ground 
that  is  hearsay. 


351 

And  the  whole  question  objected  to  by  attorney  for  claimant,  on  the 
ground  that  it  is  immaterial.) 

Ans.  Ill — I  believe  he  was  the  same  person ;  I  resided  in  Monte- 
rey at  that  time,  and  had  no  personal  knowledge  of  the  matter  alluded 
to  ;  my  rcollection  is,  that  Mr.  Jones  came  to  Monterey  sometime  in 
the  latter  part  of  1849,  on  some  business  connected  with  such  suits ; 
I  think  he  told  me  so  himself ;  I  think  I  have  heard  Mr.  James  Alex- 
ander Forbes  speak  of  his  having  been  his  counsel  in  such  cases  ;  I  do 
not  remember  who  was  the  Alcalde,  nor  what  information  I  had  at  the 
time  on  the  subject,  otherwise  than  general  rumor. 

In  a  word,  I  have  no  doubt  but  that  Mr.  Jones  is  the  same  man. 

Ques.  122 — In  your  seventh  answer  on  your  direct  examination, 
speaking  of  the  paper  which  you  found  in  Belden's  office,  vou  say,  "  I 
remember  that  a  document  so  transferred  purported  to  be  the  original 
oxpediente  of  the  mine  of  Santa  Clara,  containing  the  denouncement 
and  juridical  possession  " — was  that  document  endorsed  "  expediente"  ? 

Ans.  112 — I  do  not  remember  what  was  the  endorsement. 

Ques.  113 — What  do  you  recollect  about  the  endorsement  ? 

Ans.  112 — I  do  not  recollect  about  the  endorsement ;  I  used  the 
word  expediente,  in  the  seventh  answer,  as  descriptive  of  the  character 
of  the  document  referred  to,  and  not  with  respect  to  the  endorsement. 
I  used  the  word  as  I  am  accustomed  to  use  it,  and  to  hear  it  used, 
with  respect  to  documents  in  the  old  "  Archives  "  now  in  the  possession 
of  the  Surveyor  General. 

Examination  adjourned  until  Friday,  30th  Oct.,  1857,  at  11  A.  M. 


San  Francisco,  October  30, 1857. 

Counsel  for  the  respective  parties  not  being  present,  examination  ad- 
journed until  to-morrow,  Saturday,  October  21,  1857,  at  11  o'clock, 
A.  M. 


San  Francisco,  October  31st,  1857—11  A.  M. 

Present:    A.   C.  Peachy,  for  claimant,  and  the  witness,  H.  W. 
Halleck. 

The  Attorney  for  the  U.  S.  not  being  present,  examination  adjourn- 
ed until  Monday,  Nov.  2d,  1857,  at  11  A.  M. 


352 

San  Francisco,  Monday,  Nov.  2,  1857 — 11  A.  M. 

Cross-Examination  of  H.  W.  Halleck,  a  "witness  produced  on  behalf 
of  the  claimant,  continued. 

Present :  U.  S.  District  Attorney,  by  A.  P.  Crittenden ;  A.  C. 
Peachy  for  the  claimant. 

Questions  by  U.  S.  Attorney. 

Question  114 — In  your  last  answer,  you  speak  of  Mexican  Archives, 
— relating  to  what  subject  ? 

Answer  114 — I  mean  the  archives  of  the  former  government  of  Cal- 
ifornia, which  are  now  in  the  possession  of  the  Surveyor  General,  they 
mainly  relate  to  land  titles  ;  some  relate  to  the  proceedings  in  Courts, 
to  matters  connected  with  the  Missions,  Custom-house,  &c. 

Ques.  115 — What  do  you  understand  by  an  expediente  of  a  title? 

Ans.  115 — I  understand  the  collection  of  papers  connected  with  the 
application  for  a  title,  and  the  proceedings  thereon. 

Ques.  116 — Then  you  regard  the  paper  which  you  found  in  Bel- 
den's  office,  as  the  office  record  of  the  expediente  of  denouncement, 
and  juridical  possession  of  the  Santa  Clara  mine  ? 

Ans.  116—1  did. 

Ques.  117 — Do  I  understand  that  you  do  not  so  regard  it  now  ? 

Ans.  117 — I  regard  it  now  the  same  as  I  did  then. 

Ques.  118 — Why  did  you  not  file  a  copy  of  this  paper  with  the 
claimant's  petition  in  this  case  ? 

Ans.  118 — I  do  not  remember  any  other  reason  than  my  filing  a 
copy  of  papers  in  my  possession  at  that  time  ;  original  papers  were  not 
usually  filed  with  the  petition. 

Ques.  119— Why  did  you  not  file  a  copy  of  the  expediente  of  your 
title  ;  why  did  you  file  as  the  exhibit  of  your  title,  a  paper  which  was 
not  a  copy  of  your  title  ;  before  filing  exhibits  of  title,  did  you  not  usu- 
ally take  some  care  to  see  that  the  paper  filed  was  a  copy  of  your 
titles  ? 

Ans.  119 — I  do  not  remember  why  a  copy  of  the  expediente  was 
not  filed  ;  sometimes  copies  of  expedientes  of  titles  were  filed  with  the 
petitions,  but  more  frequently  I  think  they  were  not.  Petitions  were 
sometimes  filed  with  the  Board  of  Commissioners  without  my  having 
seen  the  original  titles,  they  being  still  in  the  hands  of  the  claimants. 
I  do  not  remember  in  this  case  the  particular  circumstances  ;  I  did 
not  have  the  general  direction,  charg  e,  or  responsibility  of  thecase  be- 
fore the  Commission ;  that  belonged  to  Mr.  Peachy. 

Ques.  120 — Can  you  give  no  explanation  why  u  Exhibit  A"  to  the 
petition  filed  as  the  exhibit  of  claimants'  title,  is  not  a  copy  of  the  pa- 


353 

per  which  you  have  just  said  was  the  expediente  of  the  claimants'  title, 
but  an  entirely  different  paper  ? 

Ans.  120 — I  did  not  know  that  there  was  any  difference  between 
the  contents  of  "  Exhibit  A  "  and  the  expediente  referred  to,  until  after 
the  case  was  appealed  to  this  Court ;  at  any  rate  I  do  not  recollect  of 
having  heard  of  a  difference,  or  to  have  examined  the  papers  before  the 
case  came  to  this  Court.  I  was  not  in  California  when  the  expediente 
referred  to  was  produced  and  proved  in  the  Commission. 

Ques.  121 — What  is  the  endorsement  on  "  Exhibit  A,  "  as  now  on 
file,  being  the  paper  produced  by  claimants,  and  put  on  file  in  pursu- 
ance of  the  stipulation  thereon  endorsed,  to  supply  the  place  of  the 
"  Exhibit  A,"  which  has  been  lost  from  the  record,  being  the  Spanish, 
of  which  "  B  "  in  the  transcript  from  the  Board  of  Commissioners,  is 
the  translation  ? 

Ans.  121. — The  endorsement  on  first  page  of  traced  copy  of"  Ex- 
hibit A.,"  as  referred  to  in  the  question,  is  as  follows  : 

"  Ano  de  1845. 

"  Expediente  del  denuncio  posesion  y  compaiiia  de  la  mina  de  azo- 
gue  nombrada  Santa  Clara  Jurisdicion  de  San  Jose  Guadalupe  en  la 
Alta  California." 

Ques.  122. — What  was  the  endorsement  on  the  paper  which  you 
found  in  Belden's  office  ? 

Ans.  122. — The  endorsement  on  the  first  page  of  the  paper  here 
produced  by  Mr.  Houghton,  and  which  I  believe  to  be  the  same  which 
I  found  in  Mr.  Belden's  office,  is : 

"  Posesion  de  la  Mina  de  Sta  Clara. 

"  Ano  de  1845." 

Ques.  123. — Do  you  know  the  hand  writing  of  both  of  those  endorse- 
ments ? 

Ans.  123. — I  do  not  know  the  hand  writing  of  the  endorsement  on 
the  last  named  paper ;  the  ondorsement  on  the  first  named  paper  I  be- 
lieve to  be  in  the  hand  writing  of  James  Alexander  Forbes. 

Ques.  124. — Do  you  know  the  hand  writing  of  the  body  of  the  last 
named  paper,  throughout,  down  to  the  signature  of  James  W.  Weekes ; 
if  so,  whose  is  it  ? 

Ans.  124. — I  believe  the  original,  of  which  this  last  named  paper  is 
a  traced  copy,  is  all  in  the  hand  writing  of  James  Alexander  Forbes, 
to  the  signature  of  James  W.  Weekes. 

Ques.  125. — What  is  the  first  document  in  the  paper  which  you 


354 

found  in  Belden's  office  ;  what  does  it  purport  to  be  ;  by  whom  signed ; 
what  the  marginal  order  in  effect,  and  by  whom  signed  ? 

Ans.  125. — It  is  a  petition  to  the  Alcalde  of  San  Jose,  purporting 
to  be  signed  by  Jose  Castro,  with  an  endorsement  on  the  margin,  pur- 
porting to  be  signed  by  Pacheco.  The  petition  is  dated  June  27, 1846, 
and  the  marginal  endorsement  is  dated,  I  think,  June  29,  1846. 

Ques.  126. — Does  that  document,  being  the  said  petition  and  mar- 
ginal order,  exist  in  the  exhibit  of  the  expediente  of  your  title,  filed 
with  the  petition  ? 

Ans.  126. — It  does  not  appear  in  the  traced  copy  of  the  document 
"  Exhibit  A.,"  being  the  same  produced  and  filed  under  stipulation 
aforesaid. 

Ques.  127. — What  is  the  next  document  appearing  in  the  paper 
which  you  found  in  Mr.  Belden's  office  ? 

Ans.  127. — The  next  paper  in  the  document  produced  by  Mr. 
Houghton,  and  which  I  believe  to  be  the  same  which  I  found  in  Mr. 
Belden's  office,  purports  to  be  a  petition  from  Andres  Castillero  to  the 
Alcalde,  dated  November  22d,  1845. 

Ques.  128. — At  what  place  ? 

Ans.  128. — At  the  Mission  of  Santa  Clara. 

Ques.  129. — Is  not  the  first  paper  in  "  Exhibit  A.,"  produced  as 
aforesaid,  the  same  petition  of  Castillero  ? 

Ans.  129. — It  purports  to  be  a  copy  of  the  same  paper,  down  to  the 
name  Andres  Castillero. 

Ques.  130. — At  what  place  is  it  dated  ? 

Ans.  130. — It  is  dated  the  Pueblo  of  San  Jose*  Guadalupe,  Novem- 
ber 22d,  1845. 

Ques.  131. — After  the  signature  of  Andres  Castillero,  what  follows 
next  ? 

Ans.  131. — The  words,  "  Es  copia  a  la  que  me  remito  firmando  la 
con  dos  testigos  de  asistencia  en  el  pueblo  de  San  Jose  Guadalupe  a 
13  de  Enero  de  1846 — Pedro  Chabolla=de  asistencia  P.  Sainsevain 
de  asa  Jose  Sunol." 

Ques.  132. — Are  those  words  to  be  found  in  the  document  which 
you  found  in  Belden's  office  ?  ' 

Ans.  132. — I  do  not  find  them  on  that  document. 

Ques.  133.  —What  is  the  next  paper  in"  Exhibit  A.,"  and  the  doc- 
ument  from  Belden's  office,  respectively  ? 

Ans.  133. — The  next  paper  in  the  latter  purports  to  be  a  petition  to 
the  Alcalde,  dated  Santa  Clara  December  3d,  1845,  and  signed  An- 
dres Castillero.  The  next  paper  in  the  first  named  document  purports 
to  be  a  copy  of  the  same  paper. 

Ques.  134. — In  "  Exhibit  A."  what  follows  next  after  the  words 
Andres  Castillero  ? 

Ans.  134. — The  words  "  Es  copia  a  la  que  remito  firmando  la  con 


355 

los  testigos  de  mi  asistencia  en  el  Pueblo  de  San  Jose*  Guadalupe  a  13 
de  Enero  de  1846 — Pedro  Chabolla=de  asa  P  Sainsevain  de  asa.  Josd 
Sunol." 

Ques.  135. — Are  those  words  found  in  the  document  from  Belden's 
office  ? 

Ans.  135. — I  do  not  so  find  them. 

Ques.  136. — What  is  the  next  paper  in"  Exhibit  A.,"  and  the  doc- 
ment  from  Belden's  office,  respectively  ? 

Ans.  136. — The  next  paper  in  both  purports  to  be  the  juridical  pos- 
session of  the  mine  of  Santa  Clara  by  Antonio  Maria  Pico,  dated,  in  the 
former,  December  30th,  1845,  and  in  the  latter,  December  1845. 
Each  of  them  have  "-de  asa  Antonio  Sunol,  de  asa  Jose'  Noriega.' ' 

Ques.  137. — Then  the  act  of  juridical  possession  is  not  dated  of  any 
day,  but  only  the  month  of  December,  1845,  as  that  act  appears  in  the 
document  from  Belden's  office  ? 

Ans.  137. — It  so  appears  in  that  document. 

Ques.  138. — And  in  "  Exhibit  A."  the  same  act  is  dated  the  30th 
day  of  that  December  ? 

Ans.  138. — It  is  so. 

Ques.  139. — In  "  Exhibit  A."  what  follows  next  after  the  words, 
"  Antonio  Maria  Pico,  de  asa  Antonio  Sunol,  de  asa  Job6  Noriega  ?  " 

Ans.  139. — The  words,  "  He  recibido  del  Sr  D  Andres  Castillero 

la  cantidad  de  veinte  y  cinco  pesos  por  cuenta  de  los  derechos  de  po- 

con  25  sesion  de  la  Mina  de  Azogue  que  esta  en  esta  Jurisdicion 

de  mi  carga  nombrada  de  Santa  Clara  Jusgado  de  San  Jose* 

Guadalupe,  Decembre  30  de  1845.     Antonio  Ma  Pico." 

Ques.  140. — Are  those  words  found  in  the  document  from  Belden's 
office  ? 

Ans.  140. — They  are  not. 

Ques.  141. — What  paper  comes  next  in  "  Exhibit  A.  ?  " 

Ans.  141. — A  paper  purporting  to  be  a  copy  of  articles  of  partner- 
ship between  Andres  Castillero,  Jose  Castro,  Secundino  Robles,  Teodoro 
RobleS,  and  Jose  Maria  del  Refugio  Suares  del  Real,  in  a  mine  of  sil- 
ver, gold,  and  quicksilver,  for  working  the  mine.  This  paper  bears 
date,  Mission  of  Santa  Clara,  2d  November,  1845,  and  the  copy  to 
have  been  made  atSanta  Clara,  December  8th,  1845,  &c. 

Ques.  142. — Is  that  paper  to  be  found  in  the  document  from  Bel- 
den's office  ? 

Ans.  142. — It  is  not. 

Ques.  143. — The  papers  you  have  examined  in  "  Exhibit  A.,"  and 
in  the  document  from  Belden's  office,  constitute  the  whole  of  that  ex- 
hibit, and  that  document,  with  the  exception  of  sundry  endorsements, 
and  of  sundry  certificates  attached  to  "  Exhibit  A.,"  do  they  not. 

Ans.  143. — They  do.     I  have  not  compared  them  with  each  other, 


356 

with  respect  to  the  contents  of  each  paper,  but  they  purport  to  be  as  I 
have  mentioned. 

Ques.  144. — Of  "  Exhibit  A.,"  and  of  the  document  from  Belden's 
office,  how  much  was  put  in  proof  before  the  Land  Commissioners  ? 
Was  it  any  more  than  the  first  and  second  petitions  of  Castillero,  and 
the  act  of  juridical  possession,  dated  without  day,  in  December,  1845, 
as  the  said  petitions  and  act  of  juridical  possession  appear  in  the  docu- 
ment from  Belden's  office,  omitting  all  else  contained  in  "  Exhibit  A." 
or  in  the  document  from  Belden's  office  ? 

To  answer  this  question  you  may  examine  the  transcript  from  the 
Land  Commissioners,  and  I  refer  you  to  the  depositions  of  Antonio 
Sunol  and  Frank  Lewis,  with  the  exhibits  thereunto  attached. 

(Question  objected  to  as  not  being  proper  on  the  cross-examination.) 

Ans.  144. — I  was  not  in  California  when  the  testimony  referred  to 
was  taken,  and  I  do  not  remember  even  to  have  examined  the  testimo- 
ny and  papers  referred  to  in  the  archives  of  the  Land  Commission ; 
the  papers  themselves  referred  to  in  the  question  will  afford  the  an- 
swer. 

Ques.  145. — After  the  letters  which  you  had  written  to  Mexico,  to 
Mr.  De  La  Torre,  or  others,  requesting  them  to  send  you  the  original 
denouncement  of  the  Mine  of  New  Almaden,  and  the  juridical  posses- 
sion given  of  the  same  in  the  year  1845,  as  you  alleged  in  your  affida- 
vit, filed  in  the  District  Court  of  the  third  Judicial  District,  December 
the  23d,  1850,  in  the  suit  then  pending  therein,  between  Maria  Ber- 
nal  de  Berreyesa  et  als.  vs.  James  A.  Forbes  and  Robert  Walkinshaw, 
concerning  which  affidavit  you  have  been  herein  before  questioned,  did 
you  write  other  letters  of  the  same  purport  to  Mr.  De  La  Torre,  or  to 
other  persons  interested  in  tne  mine  ? 

Ans.  145. — I  probably  did  ;  but  as  my  letters  relating  to  matters 
connected  with  the  titles  to  New  Almaden,  were  written  on  memoran- 
da, or  transmitting  memoranda  furnished  by  Mr.  Peachy,  as  counsel 
for  the  mine,  I  did  not  very  particularly  charge  my  mind  with  the 
matter,  and  do  not  now  remember  what  was  written,  or  when. 

Ques.  146. — Then  you  are  entirely  uncertain  whether  you  ever 
wrote  any  more  such  letters,  or  whether  you  ceased  to  write  them  af- 
ter the  discovery  in  Belden's  office  ? 

Ans.  146. — I  frequently  wrote  to  the  parties  in  Mexico  respecting 
the  operations  of  working  the  mine,  and  sometimes  inserted  in  my  let- 
ters the  substance  of  memoranda  furnished  by  Mr.  Peachy,  or  trans- 
mitted them,  in  relation  to  the  titles.  I  am  very  certain  of  having 
written  after  the  time  mentioned  with  respect  to  the  titles,  but  1  cannot 
now  remember  when  or  what  I  wrote. 

Ques.  147. — Have  you  no  more  specific  recollection  of  the  nature  of 


357 

your  correspondence  on  the  subject  of  the  papers  you  had  written  for, 
when  you  made  your  affidavit,  or  on  the  subject  of  the  important  dis- 
covery which  you  had  made  in  Mr.  Belden's  office  ? 

Ans.  147. — Perhaps  I  might  remember  more  particular  circumstan- 
ces if  the  questions  were  more  specific,  or  if  any  particular  matter 
were  now  brought  to  my  mind.  I  think  about  1851  I  ceased  corres- 
ponding with  Mr.  De  La  Torre,  with  respect  to  these  matters,  and  I 
believe  most  of  the  correspondence  with  respect  to  titles  or  title  papers 
was  carried  on  through  Mr.  Wm.  E.  Barron,  and  the  house  of  Barron, 
Forbes  &  Co.,  in  Mexico,  by  Mr.  Peachy. 

Ques.  148. — The  specific  question  which  I  desire  to  ask,  and  the 
particular  matter  to  which  I  would  call  your  attention  is,  whether  you 
did  or  did  not  continue  to  write  to  persons  in  Mexico  letters  of  a  like 
purport  with  those  referred  to  in  your  affidavit  aforesaid,  after  the  date 
of  that  affidavit,  and  after  the  discovery  of  the  document  in  the  office 
of  Belden  ? 

Ans.  148. — I  do  not  now  remember  that  I  afterwards  wrote  with 
respect  to  the  particular  matter  or  papers  referred  to. 

Ques.  149. — After  your  correspondence  ceased  with  Mr.  De  La  Tor- 
re, on  the  subject  of  the  titles  of  the  mine,  did  you  enter  into  corres- 
pondence with  any  other  of  the  parties  interested  in  the  mine  on  that 
subject  ? 

Ans.  149. — I  did  not,  except  as  incidentally  in  my  correspondence, 
as  connected  with  my  own  particular  duties  in  working  the  mine.  By 
incidentally,  I  mean  in  the  manner  I  have  before  stated. 

Ques.  150. — Were  you  not  cognizant  of  the  nature  of  the  corres- 
dence  conducted  by  Mr.  Peachy  and  Mr.  Wm.  E.  Barron,  with  the 
house  of  Barron,  Forbes  &  Co.,  as  you  have  mentioned,  on  the  subject 
of  the  title  to  this  mine  ? 

Ans.  150. — I  was,  generally,  when  in  San  Francisco. 

Ques.  151. — Did  they  continue  to  write  letters  of  the  purport  of 
those  referred  to  in  your  affidavit  of  December  23d,  1850. 

Ans.  151. — My  recollection  now  is  that  no  answers  to  the  letters 
referred  to  in  that  affidavit  were  for  a  long  time  received,  and  it  being 
supposed  that  the  letters  were  miscarried  or  lost,  other  letters  of  the 
same  purport  were  sent  via  New  York,  on  account  of  the  difficulties  or 
disturbances  on  the  western  coast  of  Mexico. 

Ques.  152. — When  and  by  whom  were  these  other  letters  written  ? 

Ans.  152. — I  do  not  remember  the  time,  but  my  recollection  now  is 
that  such  other  letters  were  sent  by  Mr.  Wm.  E.  Barron,  or  that  I  was 
so  informed  at  the  time. 

Ques.  153. — Were  the  letters  sent  by  Mr.  Barron  before  the  date 
of  your  affidavit,  or  between  that  and  the  discovery  of  the  document  in 
Belden's  office,  or  after  that  discovery  ;  were  they  of  the  letters  writ- 
ten by  you,  or  of  those  written  by  Mr.  Peachy  and  Mr.  Barron,  after 
you  had  left  the  correspondence  to  them  ? 


358 

Ans.  153. — I  do  not  remember  with  respect  to  the  time,  nor  do  I 
remember  to  have  written  at  that  period,  or  near  that  period,  to  any 
one  in  Mexico  with  respect  to  the  titles  of  the  mine,  other  than  to  Mr. 
De  La  Torre,  or,  in  the  incidental  way  I  have  mentioned,  in  my  reports 
to  Barron,  Forbes  &  Co.  of  the  operations  in  working  the  mine. 

Ques.  154. — The  letters  which  you  supposed  miscarried  were  re- 
ceived were  they  not,  as  you  afterwards  had  reason  to  believe  ? 

Ans.  154. — I  do  not  remember  ;  documents  connected  with  the  title 
papers  were  afterwards  received  by  Mr.  William  E.  Barron,  but 
whether  in  answer  to  the  first  or  subsequent  letters  I  do  not  remem- 
ber. I  think  that  the  documents  received  by  him  were  in  his  posses- 
sion a  long  time  before  I  read  or  examined  them. 

Ques.  155. — As  you  had  written  for  certain  documents,  and  were 
so  much  connected  at  that  time  particularly  wTith  the  mine  and  its  in- 
terests, was  it  not  strange  that  Mr.  Barron  should  receive  documents, 
and  keep  them  a  long  time  without  showing  them  to  you,  and  espe- 
cially as  you  had  filed  an  affidavit  in  so  important  a  suit,  declaring  that 
you  were  expecting  to  receive  documents,  and  implying  a  promise  to 
produce  them  in  Court  ? 

Ans.  155. — He  very  probably  informed  me  at  the  time  of  his  hav- 
ing received  the  documents,  and  probably  showed  them  to  me,  but  I 
do  not  remember  of  examing  them  particularly  at  that  time.  Between 
the  time  that  I  translated  the  papers  which  were  here  in  1850  and 
1851,  and  the  time  I  translated  papers  to  be  filed  in  the  Land  Com- 
mission, I  do  not  remember  of  particularly  examining  the  papers  in 
Mr.  Barron's  possession.  As  Mr.  Peachy  had  charge  of  the  litiga- 
tions pending,  I  may  have  read  or  translated  for  him  some  particular 
papers ;  not  charging  my  mind  with  it  I  do  not  remember. 

Ques.  156. — You  have  testified  that  you  suppose  that  in  your  affi- 
davit, you  must  have  referred  to  a  duplicate  original  which  you  sup- 
pose must  have  been  in  Mexico,  and  which  you  regarded  as  the  true 
title  paper  of  the  denouncement  and  juridical  possession  ;  does  it  not 
seem  to  you  strange  that  you  should  now  be  so  entirely  uncertain 
whether  you  continued  to  write  for  it  or  not,  whether  Mr.  Peachy  con- 
tinued to  write  for  it  or  not,  that  you  did  not  think  it  of  sufficient  im- 
portance to  examine  the  papers  received  by  Mr.  Barron  from  the  house 
of  Barron,  Forbes  &  Co.,  in  order  to  ascertain  whether  it  was  among 
those  papers  or  not,  and  yet  your  affidavit  was  on  file  in  which  you  had 
entered  under  obligations  to  produce  it  if  possible  In  the  suit  then 
pending  in  that  Court,  (the  Third  District  Court  of  California,)  and 
which  suit  continued  pending  for  more  than  a  year  thereafter  in  the 
same  Court,  when  it  was  transferred  to  the  United  States  District 
Court,  and  in  view  that  the  orignal  title  paper  has  continued  of  the 
same  importance  and  necessity  to  the  interests  of  the  claimants  of  the 
mine  from  December,  1850  up  to  the  present  day  ? 


359 

Ans.  156. — The  affidavit  referred  to  was  drawn  up,  to  the  best  of 
my  recollection,  by  Mr.  Peachy,  and  sworn  to  by  me  because  I  was 
then  frequently  in  San  Jose.  The  matters  sworn  to  were  undoubtedly 
within  my  own  knowledge,  but  not  being  the  person  charged  with  these 
matters  I  cannot  now  remember  particularly  what  papers  are  referred 
to,  or  what  papers  I  afterwards  saw  relating  to  the  subject. 

It  is  by  no  means  strange  that  I  do  not  now  remember  circumstances 
with  which  I  would  not  have  been  likely  at  the  time  to  charge  my 
mind. 

Ques.  147. — I  do  not  well  understand  how  this  affidavit  and  the  cir- 
cumstances connected  with  it,  before  and  after,  are  matters  with 
which  you  would  not  be  likely  to  charge  your  mind.  Will  you  ex- 
plain ? 

Ans.  157. — I  do  not  see  anything  in  this  question  requiring  an  an- 
swer. 

Ques.  158. — Was  the  affidavit  to  which  I  referred — I  mean  your 
affidavit  of  the  23d  of  December,  1850 — prepared  in  San  Francisco, 
or  in  San  Jose  ?  was  it  in  your  handwriting,  or  in  that  of  some  one 
else,  to  the  best  of  your  recollection  ? 

To  the  best  of  my  recollection  it  was  prepared  by  Mr.  Peachy  in 
San  Francisco  ;  if  in  my  handwriting,  it  was  copied  by  me  from  his 
draft.  I  think  Mr.  Peachy  drew  every  paper  connected  with  this  lit- 
igation then  pending.  I  am  quite  certain  that  I  never  prepared  any 
one  of  the  papers,  although  I  may  have  copied  some. 

Ques.  159. — When  you  carried  the  document  from  Belden's  office 
to  the  County  Recorder's  office,  did  you  leave  it  there  ? 

Ans.  159.— I  did,  or  Mr.  Belden  left  it. 

Qus.  160. — When  was  the  next  time  that  you  saw  that  document  ? 

Ans.  160. — I  have  no  recollection  of  seeing  it  afterwards  until  it 
was  produced  by  Mr.  Houghton  in  the  Circuit  Court,  U.  S.,  in  this 
place,  about  a  year  ago,  and  then  did  not  particularly  examine  it. 

Ques.  161. — Who  was  Governor  of  California  in  April  1848  ? 

Ans.  171. — Colonel  Richard  B.  Mason. 

Ques.  162. — Where  were  you  at  that  time  ? 

Ans.  162. — To  the  best  of  my  recollection  I  was  on  the  coast  of 
Lower  California,  or  at  Mazatlan,  about  the  first  of  April,  1848.  I 
arrived  at  Monterey  some  time  during  the  month  of  April,  1848,  or 
the  first  part  of  May,  1848. 

Ques.  163. — Were  you  not  in  Monterey  in  1847  ? 

Ans.  163. — I  was,  part  of  the  year. 

Ques.  164.— What  time  in  1847  ? 

Ans.  164. — From  some  time  in  January,  to  about  October,  the 
greater  portion  of  the  time. 

Adjourned  until  to-morrow,  Tuesday,  November  3d,  1857,  at  11 
A.  M. 


360 

San  Francisco,  November  3d,  1858,  at  11  A.  M. 
Cross  Examination  of  H.  W.  Halleck,  a  Witness  produced  on 

BEHALF  OF  THE  CLAIMANT. 

Present  : — The  U.  S.  District  Attorney,  by  A,  P.  Crittenden  ;  A. 
C.  Peachy  for  Claimant. 

Ques.  165. — Who  was  Secretary  of  State  for  California  in  1848. 

Ans.  165. — I  was. 

Ques.  166. — At  what  time  were  you  appointed  Secretary  of  State, 
and  how  long  did  you  hold  the  office  ? 

Ans.  154. — I  was  appointed  in  1847,  in  the  summer.  I  think  my 
commission  dated  in  August.  I  acted  as  such  some  weeks  before  the 
commission  was  made,  and  continued  to  hold  the  office  till  the  latter 
part  of  December,  1849. 

Ques.  167. 8- When  did  you  first  learn  of  the  existence  of  the  mine 
now  called  New  Almaden  ? 

Ans.  167. — I  think  in  the  month  of  March,  1847  ;  I  very  likely 
may  have  heard  of  it  before,  but  this  was  the  first  time  I  now  recollect 
of  hearing  it  talked  about. 

Ques.  168. — From  whom  did  you  hear  of  it  at  that  time,  and  what 
circumstances  particularly  brought  it  to  your  notice  ? 

Ans.  168. — On  the  road  between  San  Luis  Obispo  and  Santa  Bar- 
bara, I  met  Mr.  Robert  Walkinshaw,  who  told  me  he  had  landed  at 
Santa  Barbara,  and  was  on  his  way  to  New  Almaden  to  take  charge 
of  the  quicksilver  mine  ;  that  a  vessel  with  tools,  &c,  for  working  it 
was  on  its  way  to  Monterey,  or  was  expected  at  that  place.  I  remem- 
ber the  fact  from  his  giving  me  some  information  connected  with  the 
war  in  Mexico,  and  he  said  he  had  dispatches  for  the  Commodore  of 
the  American  squadron. 

Ques.  169. — For  whom  was  he  going  to  take  possession  of  the 
mine? 

Ans.  169. — I  do  not  remember  that  he  mentioned,  or  the  particu- 
lars of  his  conversation.  My  impression  is  he  said  he  was  going  as 
agent  or  superintendent. 

Ques.  170. — Did  he  not  say  as  agent  or  superintendent  for  whom,  or 
have  you  not  since  learned  ?  Have  you  not  learned  who  sent  the  agent, 
or  the  vessel  with  tools  ? 

Ans.  170. — I  do  not  remember  that  he  mentioned  at  that  time  for 
whom  he  was  going  as  agent.  I  think  I  did  soon  afterwards  learn,  at 
Monterey,  from  him  or  from  Mr.  Alden,  that  they  were  acting  for  par- 
ties in  Mexico,  among  whom  I  think  were  mentioned  Castillero,  Alex- 
ander Forbes,  or  the  house  of  Barron,  Forbes  &  Co. 

Ques.  171. — Who  had  charge  of  the  mine  as  agent,  or   as  superin- 


361 

tendent,  in  the  year  1847,  to  the  best  of  your  information,  knowledge 
and  belief  ? 

Ans.  171. — To  the  best  of  my  information  and  belief,  Mr.  Robert 
Walkinshaw  ;  I  do  not  remember  that  I  had  any  positive  knowledge  of 
the  matter.     I  do  not  think  I  was  at  the  mine  during  that  year. 

Ques.  172. — But  you  entertain  in  your  own  mind  no  doubt  of  the 
fact  that  he  was  ? 

Ans.  172.-  I  remember  that  Mr.  Alexander  Forbes  was  in  Monte- 
rey about  September,  1847,  on  his  way  to  the  Quicksilver  mine. 
When  he  left  California  I  do  not  know  as  I  was  absent  from  this  part 
of  the  country  in  the  latter  part  of  1847  and  the  forepart  of  1848. 
He  may  have  taken  charge  of  the  mine  while  he  was  in  this  country. 

Ques.  173. — Otherwise  you  have  no  doubt  that  during  that  time 
Mr.  Walkinshaw  was  in  charge. 

Ans.  173. — Perhaps  James  Alexander  Forbes  may  have  been  in 
charge  some  portion  of  that  time  ;  not  knowing  I  cannot  say  as  to  the 
fact.  Where  one  of  the  two  persons  mentioned  were  not  in  charge,  I 
have  no  doubt  that  Mr.  Walkinshaw  was  in  charge. 

Ques.  174. — Is  Mr.  Walkinshaw  the  same  person  whom  you  have 
mentioned  as  one  of  the  owners  of  the  mine  ? 

Ans.  174. — He  is. 

Ques.  175. — Will  you  take  the  book  now  handed  to  you,  entitled 
"  California  Message  and  Correspondence,  1850,"  and  look  at  the  let- 
ter in  document  17,  page  551,  of  said  book,  and  state  briefly  what  it 
is,  from  whom,  to  whom,  apparently  upon  what  subject  &c? 

Ans.  175. — It  is  a  letter  dated  Monterey,  April  17th,  1849,  signed 
by  R.  B.  Mason,  Col.  1st  Dragoons,  Commanding,  and  is  directed  to 
Charles  White,  Alcalde,  Pueblo  de  San  Jose,  and  purports  to  be  an 
answer  to  a  letter  from  the  latter,  and  to  have  reference  to  the  de- 
nouncement of  some  mine. 

Ques.  176. — Look  under  the  553d  page  and  give  me  the  words  of 
the  last  paragraph  ending  on  the  554th  page. 

Ans.  176 — The  words  are :  "  The  mining  laws  give  to  the  de- 
"  nouncer  of  a  new  vein  in  a  '  known  mountain,'  that  is  a  mountain 
"  known  to  contain  the  named  mineral,  '  two  appurtenances  ;'  and  to 
"  those  who  work  in  company,  four  new  appurtenances — an  appur- 
"  tenance  being  200  Spanish  varas  in  length,  and  from  100  to  200 
"  varas  in  breadth,  according  to  the  dip  or  inclination  of  the  vein. 
"  This  denouncement  of  the  17th  of  December  being  a  new  vein,  if 
"  any,  in  mountains  known  to  contain  quicksilver  ore,  entitled  the  par- 
"  ty  to  but  two  appurtenances  ;  but  working  in  company  entitled  them 
"  to  i  four  new  appurtenances,'  making  six  in  all,  (though  it  is  said  by 
"  Mr.  Walkinshaw,  a  practical  miner  of  great  experience  and  intelli- 
"  gence,  that  in  Mexico  the  law  is  so  construed,  and  such  the  invaria- 
"  ble  practice  there,  that  a  company  is  only  entitled  to  four  appurte- 


362 

"  nances  in  all.)  Now,  an  appurtenance  being  two  hundred  varas  long, 
"  and  its  greatest  width  under  the  most  favorable  circumstances,  two 
"  hundred  varas  wide,  it  follows  that  six  appurtenances  cannot  contain 
"  more  than  240,000  square  varas.  The  magistrate  put  the  party  in 
"  possession  on  the  2d  of  February  of  a  given  space  of  land,  including 
"  the  hole  they  had  dug,  measuring,  if  I  remember  rightly  your  read- 
u  ing  from  your  record  when  I  was  at  the  Pueblo  on  the  12th,  600 
"  varas  one  way  by  800  varas  the  other,  making  the  area  to  contain 
"  480,000  square  varas — -just  240,000  square  varas  more  than  he  was 
"  authorized  by  law  to  put  them  in  possession  of,  even  supposing  that 
"  they  had  fulfilled  all  the  requirements  of  the  law  to  entitle  them  to 
"  possession.  The  possession  given  on  the  27th  of  February  was  there- 
"  fore  illegal,  the  magistrate  greatly  exceeding  his  judicial  powers. 
"  The  judicial  acts  of  a  magistrate  can  only  confer  rights  on  one  party, 
"  or  take  them  from  another,  so  long  as  he  confines  himself  within  the 
"  limits  of  the  law  has  assigned  to  him.  As  soon  as  he  steps  beyond  those 
"  limits  his  judicial  acts  are  at  once  stripped  of  all  binding  force  and 
"  effect,  and  have  no  more  legal  force  than  if  performed  by  any  other 
"  individual." 

Ques.  177. — Is  not  the  Mr.  Walkinshaw  mentioned  in  that  para- 
graph, the  same  of  whom  you  have  spoken  in  this  examination  ? 

Ans.  177. — I  presume  he  is,  but  I  do  not  know,  as  I  was  not  in 
Upper  California  at  the  time  this  letter  bears  date,  and  I  know  noth- 
ing of  my  own  knowledge  as  to  what  Walkinshaw  the  letter  alludes. 

Ques.  178. — You  have  no  reason  to  doubt  that  he  is  the  same  per- 


son 


Ans.  178.— I  have  known  no  other  Mr.  Walkinshaw  in  California, 
and  therefore  presume  he  must  be  the  one  alluded  to. 

Ques.  179. — What  is  the  extent  of  the  juridical  possession  alleged 
in  this  case  to  have  been  given  to  the  claimant  in  1845  ? 

Ans.  179. — To  the  best  of  my  recollection,  it  is  3,000  varas  in  all 
directions. 

Ques.  180. — Do  not  such  words  of  description  in  Spanish  grants  or 
official  concessions,  when  applied  to  land,  signify  a  square  on  the  double 
of  the  distance  given  ?  Do  you  not  understand  the  words  in  this  case 
to  mean  the  square  of  6,000  varas  ? 

Ans.  180. — I  have  so  understood  the  words  used.  I  must  remark, 
however,  that  others  to  whom  I  have  submitted  the  words  for  inter- 
pretation think  they  mean  a  circle. 

Ques.  181. — If  they  mean  a  square,  would  it  not  contain  exactly 
900  appurtenances,  or  pertenencias,  each  of  200  Castillian  varas 
square  ?  If  they  mean  a  circle,  would  it  not  contain  more  than  700 
appurtenances  of  the  said  description  ? 

Ans.  181. — I  have  not  made  the  calculation  alluded  to  in  the  ques- 
tion, and  therefore  cannot  answer  it. 

Ques.  182. — A  square  of  6,000  varas  contains  36,000,000  square 


363 

varas.  A  pertenencia  or  appurtenance  200  varas  square  contains 
exactly  40,000  square  varas.  Are  not  40,000  contained  exactly  900 
times  in  36,000,000  ? 

Ans.  182. — I  have  not  made  the  calculation,  but  presume  the  coun- 
sel is  a  sufficiently  good  mathematician  to  divide  one  quantity  by 
another,  and  to  deduce  a  correct  result,  provided  the  quantities  are 
not  too  large. 

•  Ques.  183. — Your  last  answer  is  doubtless  very  good  wit,  and  you 
have  a  right  to  make  it ;  will  you  now  explain,  if  you  can,  how,  in 
1848,  Mr.  Robert  Walkinshaw,  an  owner  in  the  mine,  Superintendent 
and  Agent  in  possession,  as  this  case  alleges,  of  the  enormous  quantity 
of  900  pertenencias  or  appurtenances,  should  say  to  Col.  Mason, u  that 
in  Mexico  the  law  is  so  construed,  and  such  the  invariable  practice 
there  that  a  company  is  only  entitled  to  4  appurtenances  in  all  ?" 

Ans.  183. — I  do  not  know  what  Mr.  Walkinshaw  told  Col.  Mason 
in  1848,  nor  is  it  my  business  as  a  witness  to  reconcile  any  contradic- 
tions of  Mr.  Walkinshaw's  assertions  and  conduct. 

Ques.  184. — As  Secretary  of  State,  did  not  your  duties  relate  to 
the  civil  branch  of  the  Government  ?  Did  you,  or  did  you  not,  have 
charge  of  the  public  Archives  of  the  Government  in  Monterey  ? 

Ans.  184. — They  did.     And  I  had  such  charge  when  in  Monterey. 

Ques.  185. — You  of  course  regarded  the  charge  of  the  public  ar- 
chives as  a  responsible  trust,  and  kept  them  safely,  did  you  not  ? 

Ans.  185. — I  did  so  regard  them,  and  did  so  endeavor  to  keep 
them  safely. 

Ques.  186. — Under  no  circumstances  would  you  permit  any  person 
to  carry  away  any  of  the  papers  constituting  these  archives,  or  to  add 
new  papers  to  them  ; — did  you  ? 

Ans.  186. — Under  no  circumstances  did  I  allow  any  one,  except 
the  Clerk  in  my  office,  to  have  access  to  the  Archives,  while  I  was  in 
charge,  (with  the  exception  I  will  add  of  Wm.  Carey  Jones,  and  his 
Clerk,  Bayard  Taylor,  in  1849,  and  then  only  by  the  order  of  Gov. 
Keilly,  under  some  instructions  from  the  Government  at  Washington.) 
I  never  allowed  any  person  to  move  a  document  from  the  archives  or 
to  deposit  one  in  the  archives  without  endorsing  upon  it  the  date  of 
filing  and  by  whom  deposited. 

Ques.  187. — The  Clerk  or  Clerks  whom  you  had  employed  in  care 
of  the  archives  in  1847  were  honorable  men  and  observed  the  same 
rule  which  you  followed  yourself,  to  the  best  of  your  knowledge  and 
belief  ?     Is  it  not  so  ? 

Ans.  187. — They  were,  and  did. 

Ques.  188. — When  Mr.  Alexander  Forbes  arrived  in  Monterey  in 
the  year  1847,  did  he  lodge  any  document  among  the  public  ar- 
chives ? 

Ans.  188. — None,  to  my  knowledge. 


364 

Ques.  189. — From  the  rules  of  your  office  and  the  character  of 
your  employees,  as  you  have  stated,  have  you  any  idea,  even  the  least, 
that  he  did  lodge  in  the  public  archives  any  document  ? 

Ans.  189. — I  have  no  recollection  of  ever  seeing  any  document 
lodged  by  him,  nor  have  I  any  knowledge  that  any  was  ever  so  lodged. 
My  recollection  is,  that  I  left  Upper  California  soon  after  his  arrival 
at  Monterey. 

Ques  190. — From  anything  which  happened  at  the  time  of  his  ar- 
rival, and  before  your  departure,  or  which  came  to  your  knowledge 
after  you  returned  from  the  lower  country,  and  resumed  your  duties 
aad  the  charge  of  the  papers,  have  you  any  knowledge  or  belief 
whatever  that  Mr.  Alexander  Forbes  did,  when  in  California,  lodge 
any  document  among  the  public  archives  at  Monterey  ? 

Ans.  190. — I  have  no  knowledge  that  he  did,  and  have  no  reason 
for  believing  that  he  did.  My  recollectien  now  is,  that  he  called  upon 
the  Governor  and  the  Commodore  of  the  Squadron  in  Monterey,  and 
exhibited  to  them  some  papers  connected  with  the  mine,  or  the  use  to 
be  made  at  the  mine  of  the  contents  of  a  cargo  of  a  small  vessel 
which  had  arrived  at  Monterey,  and  which  was  either  seized  or  in- 
tended to  be  seized  as  Mexican  property.  I  have  no  recollection  of 
seeing  the  papers,  or  what  was  done  about  the  cargo  or  the  vessel. 
I  think  this  was  about  the  time  I  left  for  the  lower  coast.  I  am  quite 
certain  that  I  was  not  called  in  consultation  in  the  matter,  or  I  should 
now  recollect  more  particularly. 

Ques.  191. — This  Mr.  Alexander  Forbes  was  the  senior  partner  of 
the  house  of  Barron,  Forbes  &  Co.,  of  Tepic,  was  he  not  ? 

Ans.  191. — He  was  a  partner  of  that  house,  but  whether  the  sen- 
ior or  not,  I  do  not  know. 

Ques.  192. — Does  that  house  still  exist?  Has  it  always  been 
reputed  a  very  wealthy  house  ? 

Ans.  192. — The  house  of  Barron,  Forbes  &  Company  still  exists, 
but  I  believe  Mr.  Alexander  Forbes  ceased  to  be  a  member  of  it  some 
years  ago.     It  is  reputed  to  be  wealthy. 

Ques.  193. — When  you  became  acquainted  with  Alexander  Forbes 
was  he  not  then  a  very  old  man  ;  and  do  you  know  whether  he  was 
alive  or  dead  at  the  date  of  the  last  news  concerning  him  ? 

Ans.  193. — When  I  first  saw  him  in  Monterey  in  the  summer  of 
1847,  he  was  quite  an  old  man.  I  have  never  seen  him  since  that 
period.     I  believe  he  is  still  living. 

Ques.  194.— Where  ? 

Ans.  194. — I  think  somewhere  in  England.  I  am  under  the  im- 
pression that  he  is  now  living  with  his  brother,  Dr.  John  Forbes,  in 
the  city  of  London. 

Ques.  195. — Did  you  ever  see  Andres  Castillero,  the  claimant  ? 

Ans.  195. — I  never  did  to  my  knoAvledge. 


365 

Ques  196. — Did  you  ever  correspond  with  him  ? 

Ans.  196. — I  have  no  recollection  of  ever  writing  to  him,  or  of 
receiving  a  letter  from  him. 

Ques.  197. — Did  the  firm  of  Halleck,  Peachy  &  Billings  ever  cor- 
respond with  him  ? 

Ans.  197. — Not  to  my  knowledge  or  present  recollection. 

Ques.  198. — You  have  not  mentioned  him  as  one  of  the  owners  or 
lessees  of  this  mine.  Does  he,  or  not,  still  hold  any  interest  in  the 
mine  ?     If  he  has  parted  with  his  interest,  when,  and  to  whom  ? 

Ans.  198. — I  understand  that  he  was  the  original  lessor,  and  that  he 
afterwards  sold  out  the  part  or  the  whole  of  his  interest  in  the  mine. 
I  do  not  know  the  particular  times  when,  or  the  inwaediate  persons  to 
whom  he  sold.  % 

Ques.  199. — Have  you  not  good  reason  to  believe,  and  long  enter- 
tained the  belief  that  he  had  sold  all  his  interest  to  Alexander  Forbes, 
or  Barron,  Forbes  &  Co.,  or  others  of  whom  you  have  mentioned  as 
the  owners  of  this  mine,  and  before  the  year  1849  ? 

Ans.  199. — I  have  no  positive  knowledge  that  he  did  or  did  not, 
and  I  think  that  he  had  not  at  that  time  disposed  of  all  his  interest  in 
the  mine. 

Ques.  200.— Had  he  not  before  1850  ? 

Ans.  200. — I  think  that  he  had  either  before  or  in  the  early  part 
of  1850,  but  I  do  not  know  that  he  had  legally  conveyed  it  all  away, 
nor  whether  he  did  not  still  have  some  interest  in  it  or  its  produce. 

Ques.  201. — At  or  before  what  time  do  you  believe  he  had  legally 
conveyed  away  his  interest  ? 

Ans.  201. — Some  time  during  the  last  year — 1856. 

(Numbers  skipped  to  206.) 

Ques.  206.— To  whom  ? 

Ans.  206. — A  deed  was  made  by  him  I  think  during  last  year  to 
Frederick  Billings,  of  San  Francisco,  conveying  all  his  interest  in 
New  Almaden,  as  I  understood,  for  the  purpose  of  having  Mr.  Bill- 
ings' deed  in  the  proper  proportions  to  the  parties  who  were  then  the 
equitable  owners  of  such  proportions,  or  interest. 

Ques.  207. — In  your  answer,  No.  200  of  cross-exsmination,  you 
say,  "  I  think  that  he  (Castillero)  had  either  before  or  iu  the  early 
part  of  1850,"  sold  all  his  interest,  &c.  Do  you  mean  that  the  Deed 
to  Mr.  Billings  was  to  carry  out  that  sale  ? 

Ans.  207. — I  so  understood  it. 

Ques.  208. — Was  the  deed  to  Mr.  Billings  of  all  of  his  original 
interest,  or  of  a  portion  only,  and  what  portion  ? 

Ans.  208. — My  impression  now  is,  that  it  was  for  all  his  original 
interest,  or  for  what  of  that  interest  he  then  at  the  time  of  deeding 


366 

had,  but  I  do  not  remember  the  wording  of  the  deed.  I  do  not  re- 
member to  have  seen  it  since  about  the  time  it  was  received,  or  shortly 
afterwards. 

Ques.  209. — Why  was  not  this  claim  presented  in  the  name  of  the 
real  parties  in  interest,  instead  of  that  of  Andres  Castillero,  who  so 
early  as  the  beginning  of  1850  had  sold  out  all  his  interest? 

Ans.  209. — My  recollection  now  is,  that  Mr.  Peachy  advised  its 
presentation  in  the  name  of  Castillero,  for  the  reason  that  he  had  no 
proper  deraignment  of  title  to  all  the  parties  then  supposed  or  believed 
to  be  the  parties  in  interest ;  and  because  he  did  not  know  what,  if 
any,  Castillero  retained. 

Ques.  210. — Would*  it  not  have  answered  as  well  to  present  the 
claim  in  the  name  of  parties  without  deraignment  of  title,  as  in  the 
name  of  a  party  who  had  sold  out  all  his  interest. 

Ans.  210. — My  recollection  is,  that  the  Board  of  Commissioners 
required  a  complete  deraignment  of  legal  title  from  an  original  gran- 
tee to  the  claimant  in  whose  name  the  claim  was  presented,  but  that 
parties  in  interest  under  an  original  title  or  grant  could  present  it  in 
the  name  of  such  grantee ;  such  was  my  understanding  of  the  practice 
in  the  Board  of  Commissioners. 

Ques.  211  — Is  not  Andres  Castillero  a  Mexican  citizen  ?  And 
which  of  the  persons  whom  you  have  named  as  owners  of  the  mine 
are  Mexican  citizens  ?  and  please  state  the  nationality  of  each  of  the 
persons  for  whose  benefit  this  claim  is  now  prosecuted  ? 

Ans.  211. — I  do  not  know  who  were  or  who  were  not,  of  the  per- 
sons named,  Mexican  citizens.  My  impression  is,  that  Mr.  Parrott 
(John,)  and  Mr.  James  R.  Bolton,  are  Americans  by  birth  ;  that  Mr. 
Wm.  E.  Barron  was  born  in  Spain  ;  Mr.  James  A.  Forbes  was  an  Eng- 
lishman by  birth,  and  a  Mexican  by  naturalization ;  that  Mr.  Walkin- 
shaw  was  British  by  birth,  and  I  think  that  I  have  heard  that  he  was 
a  naturalized  Mexican.  Mr.  Martinez  speaks  the  Spanish  language, 
but  I  do  not  know  whether  or  not  he  was  born  in  Mexico.  Mr.  Escan- 
don,  I  believe,  is  a  Mexican  by  birth,  and  also  Mr.  E.  W.  Barron. 
Mr.  E.  Barron,  I  think,  is  British  by  birth,  and  I  suppose  Mexican  by 
naturalization,  as  I  have  seen  his  name  as  one  of  the  Committee  on 
Colonization  of  the  Mexican  Government  or  Congress,  but  I  have  no 
knowledge  whether  he  was  so  or  not.  Mr.  Wm.  Forbes,  I  think,  is 
British  by  birth,  but  whether  a  naturalized  Mexican  or  not,  I  do  not 
know.  I  have  never  seen  him  but  once,  and  then  but  a  moment  in  the 
road  ;  I  judge  him  to  be  British  by  birth. 

Ques.  212. — Please  look  at  the  affidavit  which  you  made  in  open 
Court  on  the  8th  April,  1851,  in  the  3d  Judicial  District  Court,  for 
the  purpose  of  obtaining  a  removal  of  a  cause  then  pending  between 
Berreyesa,  et  als,  and  De  La  Torre,  et  als,  to  the  U.  S.  District  Court, 
as  the  same   appears  in  a  certified  transcript  of  the  said  cause  from 


367 

the  said  Court,  now  on  file  in  this  case,  and  say  whether  your  last  an- 
swer corresponds  with  this  affidavit. 

Ans.  212. — It  is  stated  in  that  affidavit  that  Mr.  James  A.  Forbes 
was  a  subject  of  Great  Britain.  He  so  claimed  to  be  at  that  time,  and 
I  believe  has  been  decided  so  to  be  by  the  Circuit  Court  of  the  United 
States  for  the  District  of  California,  in  and  for  the  Northern  District, 
notwithstanding  that  he  was  a  naturalized  citizen  of  Mexico,  and  resid- 
ed in  California  at  the  date  of  the  Treaty.  What  information  I  had 
at  that  time  as  to  the  then  citizenship  of  Mr.  E.  Barron,  I  do  not  now 
remember.  My  reason  for  thinking  now  that  he  must  have  been  a 
naturalized  citizen  of  Mexico,  is  the  fact  of  his  holding  office  under  that 
Government. 

Ques.  213. — Upon  the  affidavit  to  which  I  have  referred  you,  stating 
the  nationality  of  James  A.  Forbes,  amongst  others,  was  not  the  suit 
of  Berreyesa  et  als,  removed  from  the  State  Courts  to  the  United 
States  Court  ? 

Ans.  213. — My  recollection  now  is,  that  the  case  was  removed  on 
stipulation,  and  after  the  affidavit. 

Ques.  214. — When  James  A.  Forbes  was  held  by  the  Circuit  Court 
of  the  United  States  for  the  District  of  California,  in  and  for  the  North- 
ern District,  was  it  not  on  a  plea  in  abatement  to  a  suit  brought  by  the 
same  Berreyesa' s  or  some  of  them,  in  which  James  A.  Forbes  alleged 
that  he  was  a  citizen  of  the  United  States  ? 

Ans.  214. — I  think  it  was.  And  I  think  that  Mr.  Forbes  at  that 
time  had  changed  the  opinion  which  he  held  in  1851,  as  to  the  effect 
of  the  Mexican  Treaty.  I  remember  very  distinctly  that  in  1851,  he 
claimed  to  be  a  British  subject,  and  said  that  he  did  not  intend  for  the 
present,  or  until  his  land  titles  were  settled,  to  become  an  American 
citizen  ;  and  that  I  never  knew  or  heard  that  he  had  been  naturalized 
as  a  Mexican  until  about  the  time  of  the  proceeding  in  the  United 
States  Circuit  Court  referred  to. 

Ques.  215. — Have  you  visited  the  Republic  of  Mexico  at  any  time 
since  filing  the  petition  in  this  cause  ? 

Ans.  215. — I  passed  through  the  Republic  of  Mexico  from  San  Bias 
to  Vera  Cruz  on  my  journey  from  San  Francisco  to  New  York  nearly 
three  years  ago,  and  at  no  other  time. 

Ques.  216. — On  what  clay  did  you  leave  San  Francisco  ?  Did  you 
go  by  a  sailing  vessel,  or  by  steamer  ?  When  did  you  arrive  at  San 
Bias  ? 

Ans.  216. — In  January,  1855,  I  left  San  Francisco,  near  the  first 
of  the  month.  I  went  down  to  San  Bias  in  a  sailing  vessel ;  it  took 
me  about  twenty  days  to  make  the  passage.  I  arrived  at  San  Bias 
after  a  passage  of  about  twenty  days. 

Ques.  217. — In  San  Bias  did  you  see  any  of  the  owners,  or  lessees 
of  this  mine  ;   if  so,  which  ? 

Ans.  217. — I  did  not. 


338 

Ques.  218. — Did  you  see  none  of  the  house  of  Barron,  Forbes  & 
Co.atTepic? 

Ans.  218.— I  did  not. 

Ques.  219. — Did  you  see  any  of  the  owners  or  lessees  of  the  mine 
any  where  in  the  Republic  of  Mexico  ? 

Ans.  219.— I  did. 

Ques.  220. — Were  none  of  the  members  of  the  house  of  Barron, 
Forbes  &  Co.,  in  Tepic  when  you  were  there  ? 

Ans.  220. — None  of  them  to  my  knowledge. 

Ques.  221. — Which  of  the  owners  or  lessees  of  the  mine  did  you 
see  in  the  Republic  of  Mexico,  and  at  what  place  did  you  see  them  ? 

Ans.  221. — I  met  Mr.  Wm.  Forbes  and  Mr.  E.  W.  Barron  in  the 
road  about  half  way  between  San  Bias  and  Tepic.  I  saw  Mr.  Martinez 
in  the  City  of  Guadalaxara,  and  Mr.  E.  Barron  in  the  City  of  Mexico. 

Ques.  222. — Did  you  see  Mr.  De  La  Torre  ? 

Ans.  222. — I  did,  in  the  City  of  Mexico,  and  went  with  him  to  visit 
the  mines  of  Pachuco  and  Real  Del  Monte. 

Ques.  223. — And  none  of  these  persons  gave  you  the  duplicate  orig- 
inal of  the  denouncement  and  judicial  possession,  for  which  you  sup- 
pose you  must  have  written  at  the  time  when  you  made  affidavit,  (De- 
cember 23d,  1850,)  and  you  asked  none  of  them  for  it ;  and  which 
paper  you  have  said  you  regarded  as  the  true  title  paper  of  the  par- 
ties interested  ? 

Ans.  223. — I  have  no  recollection  of  any  conversation  with  the  par- 
ties interested,  whom  I  then  saw,  with  respect  to  the  title  papers  of  the 
mine,  except  with  Mr.  E.  Barron.  I  think  the  substance  of  the  con- 
versation with  him  was  to  the  effect,  that  he  had  dispatched  to  Califor- 
nia papers  connected  with  the  title  to  the  mine,  which  must  have 
reached  here  after  I  had  left.  I  have  no  recollection  of  any  conversa- 
tion with  respect  to  the  particular  character  or  contents  of  the  papers. 

Ques.  224. — When  in  Mexico  did  you  see  Jose  Maria  Lafragua,  the 
distinguished  Mexican  politician  and  former  Minister  of  Relations,  who 
by  the  transcript  from  the  Board  of  Land  Commissioners  would  appear 
to  have  come  to  California  and  testified  in  this  cause  for  the  claimant  ? 

Ans.  224.— I  did  not. 

Ques.  225. — Did  you  learn  from  any  of  the  parties  interested  in 
this  mine,  where  he  was  at  that  time  ? 

Ans.  225.— I  learned,  I  think,  from  Mr.  E.  Barron,  that  Mr.  La- 
fragua was  then  in  California,  or  had  gone  to  California. 

Ques.  226. — Where  did  you  learn  that  he  went  from  ? 

Ans.  226. — My  recollection  is,  that  he  went  originally  from  the  City 
of  Mexico,  and  immediately  from  the  city  of  New  Orleans,  to  California. 

Ques.  227. — What  was  the  occasion  of  his  leaving  the  City  of  Mex- 
ico, with  whom  did  he  leave,  or  what  other  distinguished  Mexican 


369 

chaarcters  left  about  the  same  time,  for  the  same  cause,  and  when  did 
he  leave  ? 

Ans.  227. — I  do  not  know  when,  or  with  whom  he  left  the  City  of 
Mexico.  I  understood  that  he  came  to  California  to  give  his  testimony 
in  this  case.  I  do  not  remember  to  have  heard  anything  said  about 
the  circumstances  of  his  leaving  the  City  of  Mexico,  or  with  whom  or 
how  he  left,  or  at  what  time. 

Ques.  228. — Did  you  not  learn  from  Mr.  E.  Barron  in  Mexico,  that 
Mr.  Lafragua  left  that  city  and  the  Republic  for  political  reasons,  and 
that  Mr.  Olaguibel  and  other  distinguished  persons  of  the  same  party, 
had  left  for  the  same  cause,  and  about  what  time  they  left  ? 

Ans.  228. — I  have.no  recollection  of  hearing  anything  of  the  kind 
in  Mexico.  And  it  is  my  impression  that  Mr.  Lafragua  did  not  leave 
for  political  reasons.  The  only  thing  I  now  remember  to  have  heard 
touching  that  subject  was,  that  Mr.  Lafragua  had  made  remarks  in 
New  Orleans  about  Santa  Anna,  and  that  the  latter  had  given  orders, 
or  threatened  to  give  orders  to  arrest  him  on  his  return  from  California. 
And  I  learned  either  there  or  subsequently,  that  on  investigation,  Santa 
Anna  had  found  that  the  remarks  were  of  no  importance.  I  think  he 
did  not  arrest  him  on  his  return  from  California. 

Ques.  229. — On  what  day  did  you  reach  the  City  of  Mexico,  and 
on  what  day  did  you  leave  ? 

Ans.  229. — I  do  not  now  remember  the  dates.  I  think  I  reached 
there  between  the  5th  and  10th  of  Febuary,  1855,  and  left  about  the 
18th  of  the  same  month  ;  during  that  interval  I  was  absent  from  the 
City  of  Mexico  a  portion  of  the  time  visiting  other  places. 

Ques.  230. — When  did  you  reach  San  Francisco  on  your  return  ? 

Ans.  230.— The  latter  part  of  May,  1855. 

Ques.  231. — Lafragua  was  not  here  then  ?  When  did  he  arrive  in 
California,  as  you  may  have  since  learned,  and  when  did  he  leave  ? 

Ans.  231. — As  I  have  since  learned,  I  think  he  arrived  here  soon 
after  I  left,  but  I  do  not  know  the  dates.  I  think  he  remained  hore 
but  a  jfew  weeks. 

Ques.  232. — Did  he  go  by  a  steamer  to  Acapulco,  or  by  a  sailing 
vessel  to  Mazatlan  ;  which  vessel  was  despatched  by  Bolton  &  Bar- 
ron of  this  city  ? 

Ans.  232. — I  do  not  know  how  he  left ;  nor  do  I  now  remember  to 
have  heard  on  what  kind  of  a  vessel  he  left.  If  I  have  so  heard,  I 
have  forgotten  it,  and  my  impression  now  is,  that  he  went  on  a  steamer 
to  Acapulco,  but  I  have  no  recollection  of  how  I  got  that  impression. 

Examination  adjourned  until  to-morrow,  Nov.  4th,  1857,  at  11  o'- 
clock, A.  M. 


370 

San  Francisco,  Nov.  4th,  1857. 

Cross-examination  adjourned  until  to-morrow,  Nov.  5th,  1857,  at  11 
o'clock,  A.  M. 


San  Francisco,  Nov.  5th,  1857. 

Cro3s-Examinaticn  of  II.  W.  Halleck,  a  witness  produced  on  behalf 
of  the  claimant,  continued. 

Present :  The  U.  S.  Attorney,  by  A.  P.  Crittenden  ;  A.  C.  Peachy 
for  claimant. 

Ques.  233. — In  your  answer,  No.  209,  on  your  cross-examination, 
you  say,  that  yon  understand  the  reason  why  the  claim  in  this  case 
was  presented  in  the  name  of  Castillero,  to  be  the  difficulty  of  design- 
ing title  to  the  parties  in  interest.  Were  not  there  any  title  deeds 
among  all  the  documents  relating  to  the  title  to  the  mine,  brought  to 
to  this  country  by  De  La  Torre,  or  since  sent  by  the  house  of  Barron, 
Forbes  &  Co.  of  Tepic,  and  which  you  may  have  at  any  time  seen  in 
the  tin  box,  of  which  you  have  spoken,  or  elsewhere  ? 

Ans.  233. — My  recollection  is,  that  the  greater  part,  or  all  of  the 
papers  which  I  saw  in  the  hands  of  De  La  Torre,  were  copies.  But  I 
cannot  now  distinguish  between  those  which  I  then  saw  and  those 
which  I  have  subsequently  seen.  Some  of  them  purported  to  be  con- 
veyances, but  if  I  remember  aright,  it  was  Mr.  Peachy's  opinion  at 
the  time,  that  they  were  not  properly  executed  for  the  conveyance  of 
real  estate  in  California,  and  that  no  deraignment  of  legal  title  from 
Castillero  to  those  claiming  shares,  or  interest,  in  the  mine,  and  lands, 
of  New  Almaden,  could  then  be  established. 

Ques.  234. — What  was  the  nature  of  the  defect  which  rendered 
them  insufficient  to  convey  real  estate,  and  to  deraign  title  to  land  ? 

Ans.  234. — My  recollection  now  is,  that  the  papers  were  not  signed 
and  acknowledged'as  required  by  the  laws  of  California,  and  that  they  did 
not  state  with  sufficient  definiteness  the  interest  intended  to  be  conveyed. 
There  may  have  been  other  defects  which  I  do  not  at  this  moment  re- 
member. 

Ques.  235. — Wherein  were  they  indefinite  in  describing  the  interest 
conveyed  ? 

Ans.  235. — I  do  not  now  particularly  remember.  But  I  think  that 
i  some  of  them  it  was  not  stated  whether  the  interest  intended  to  be 
onveyed  was  in  the  mine  and  lands,  or  only  in  the  mine,  and  that  the 
iterest  was  not  sufficiently  described. 

Ques.  236. — Have  not  some  of  the  conveyances  to  which  you  refer, 


371 

been  made  of  record  in  the  office  of  the  County  Recorder  of  Santa 
Clara  county? 

Ans.  236. — I  think  they  have  ;  but  whether  subsequent  or  prior  to 
the  filing  of  the  petition  in  this  case  I  do  not  remember. 

Ques.  287. — Can  you  name  some  of  those  deeds  which  have  been 
put  on  record  in  Santa  Clara  county  ? 

Ans.  237. — I  remember  none  except  from  Jecker,  Torre  &  Co.,  or 
from  Mr.  De  La  Torre  to  Mr.  Barron,  or  to  Barron,  Forbes  &  Co.,  and 
those  not  of  my  own  knowledge,  so  far  as  I  can  remember. 

Ques.  238. — Did  not  some  of  the  persons  who  claimed  an  interest 
in  this  property  at  the  time  the  claim  was  presented  before  the  Land 
Commission,  derive  that  from  Jose  Castro,  Padre  Real,  Secundino 
Robles  and  Teodoro  Robles,  and  not  from  Castillero  ? 

Ans.  238. — I  think  they  did  derive  title  from  the  parties  mentioned, 
but  my  impression  is  that  such  titles,  or  at  least  a  part  of  them,  were 
ratified  and  confirmed  by  Castillero. 

Ques.  239. — Under  the  Esdritura  de  CompaTiia  given  in  evidence 
on  the  part  of  the  claimant,  had  not  Jose  Castro,  Padre  Real,  Secun- 
dino Robles  and  Teodoro  Robles,  an  interest  in  the  property  jointly 
with  the  interest  claimed  by  Castillero,  and  were  they  not  competent 
themselves  to  convey  the  several  interests  which  they  claimed,  and  had 
they  not  conveyed  those  interests  to  other  persons  prior  to  the  pre- 
sentation of  this  claim  before  the  Board  of  Land  Commissioners  ? 

Ans.  239. — My  impression  is,  that  with  the  exception  of  Padre 
Real  the  parties  named  had  an  interest  jointly  with  Castillero,  but  that 
the  legal  title  was  in  the  latter.  That  the  parties  named  had  conveyed 
away  their  interests,  whatever  they  were,  prior  to  the  presentation  of 
the  petition.  My  impression  now  is,  that  Padre  Real  found  that  he  could 
not  hold  an  interest  under  the  Mexican  laws,  and  that  he  either  sur- 
rendered his  interest  to  Castillero,  or  that  the  parties  to  whom  he  con- 
veyed obtained  new  conveyances  or  confirmations  from  Castillero  ;  my 
recollection  on  this  subject  is  not  distinct. 

Ques:  240. — Do  you  mean  to  say  that  under  that  writing  of  part- 
nership, and  according  to  the  law  in  force  at  its  date,  the  legal  title  to 
the  whole  property  claimed  by  Castillero  was  in  himself  ? 

Ans.  240. — I  did  not  mean  to  give  an  opinion  of  the  Mexican  law, 
or  of  the  legal  effect  of  that  writing  ;  I  meant  merely  to  give  what  I 
had  heard  said  about  the  time  of  presenting  this  petition,  or  subse- 
quently, with  respect  to  the  difficulty  of  deraigning  legal  title  from 
Castillero  to  those  then  claiming  interest. 

Ques.  241. — Do  you  know  what  "  Andres  Castillero,  Capitan  de 
Caballeria  permanente,"  was  doing  in  California  in  1845,  and  when  he 
arrived  here,  when  he  left  here,  and  for  what  place  he  left  ? 

Ans.  241. — I  do  not. 

(Cross  Examination  concluded.) 


372 

Examination  in   Chief  Resumed. 

Ques.  1. — State  by  what  means  you  remember  your  visit  to  Bel- 
den's  office,  spoken  of  in  your  examinatien  in  chief,  and  state  fully  all 
the  particulars  you  remember  about  that  visit  and  your  going  to  the 
County  Recorder's  office  with  the  document  referred  to. 

Ans.  1. — I  remember  the  circumstances  of  going  to  his  office  to  look 
for  papers  connected  with  New  Almaden  very  distinctly,  from  the  fact 
that  it  was  the  only  time  that  I  ever  was  in  his  office  ;  I  remember  it  also 
from  the  circumstance  that  Mr.  Belden,  in  looking  over  the  documents, 
found  some  papers  connected  with  some  other  mine  which  he  said  had 
been  much  enquired  for,  and  which  he  was  glad  to  find.  I  remember 
pretty  distinctly  that  it  was  at  the  time  I  was  staying  at  New  Alma- 
den making  translations  of  papers,  and  passing  New  Year's  day  at 
that  place,  the  only  one  I  passed  there.  I  also  remember  that  Mr. 
Greenhow  was  examining  my  translations  in  the  office  of  Halleck,  Peachy 
&  Billings,  at  the  corner  of  Commercial  and  Montgomery  streets  ;  that 
they  occupied  those  offices  from  about  October  or  November,  1850,  to 
April,  1851,  or  a  very  short  time  previous  to  the  May  fire  of  1851. 
They  moved  at  that  time  to  Merchant  siieet,  where  they  were  burnt 
out. 

Ques.  2. — Why  do  you  suppose  the  document  produced  by  Mr. 
Houghton  to  be  the  same  that  you  sawkin  Mr.  Belden's  office,  and  with 
him  carried  to  the  County  Recorder's  office  ? 

•  Ans.  2. — I  think  I  have  already  stated,  from  the  subject  matter  of 
the  contents  being  the  same,  that  the  one  I  there  saw  purported  to  be 
originals  of  the  denouncement  and  juridical  possession,  and  that  the 
one  presented  by  Mr.  Houghton  purported  also  to  be  made  up  of  origi- 
nal papers. 

Ques.  3. — You  have  stated  in  your  cross  examination  that  in  the 
year  1855,  you  visited  the  Republic  of  Mexico  ;  state  the  object  of 
your  visit,  and  by  whom  your  expenses  were  paid. 

Ans.  3. — My  expenses  were  paid  by  myself;  the  object  of  my  visit 
was  to  see  the  country,  and  more  particularly  the  battle  fields  in  the 
vicinity  of  Mexico  ;  and  to  examine  the  manner  of  working  mines  in 
Mexico. 

Ques.  4. — In  Mexico,  did  you  hear  anything  said  of  the  character 
of  Jose  Maria  Lafragua,  the  person  of  that  name  concerning  whom 
you  testified  ?  if  yea,  state  what  you  learned  of  his  public  and  private 
character,  and  from  whom. 

(Question  objected  to,  on  the  grounds,  first,  that  it  is  not  an  inquiry 
as  to  the  general  reputation  of  the  witness  in  the  community  where  he 
lives  and  is  known  ;  second,  that  it  does  not  appear  that  the  witness 
knows  the  general  reputation   of  Lafragua ;  third,  that   the    United 


373 

States  not  having  attacked  the  general  reputation  of  Lafragua,  evi- 
dence in  support  of  it  on  the  part  of  the  claimants  is  inadmissible  ; 
fourth,  that  no  question  was  asked  the  witness  upon  the  cross  examina- 
tion in  to  the  regard  general  reputation  of  Lafragua.) 

Ans.  4. — After  learning,  as  I  have  stated  in  my  cross  examination, 
that  Mr.  Lafragua  had  gone  to  California  as  a  witness  in  this  case,  I 
did  make  some  enquiries  with  respect  to  his  character,  and  I  was  told 
by  all  persons  of  whom  I  enquired  that  no  person  in  Mexico  was  more 
highly  respected,  and  that  his  character  was  above  all  reproach.  I 
remember  hearing  him  compared  as  a  statesman,  lawyer  and  a  gentle- 
man, with  Mr.  J.  J.  Crittenden  and  Mr.  J.  M.  Berrien,  of  the  United 
States.  I  cannot  now  remember  the  names  of  all  the  persons  with 
whom  I  conversed  on  that  subject,  but  among  others  I  think  I  remem- 
ber General  Gadsden,  the  American  Minister  in  Mexico,  Mr.  Black, 
the  American  Consul,  Mr.  De  La  Torre  and  Mr.  Jecker,  Gov.  De  La 
Vega,  of  Sinaloa,  the  British  Minister  in  Mexico,  Mr.  Manuel  Escan- 
don,  and  Mr.  E.  Barron. 

Ques.  5. — State,  if  you  remember,  when  you  first  knew  that  Mr. 
James  Alexander  Forbes  had  been  a  naturalized  Mexican,  and  if  you 
know  when  Messrs.  Peachy  &  Billings  were  first  made  aware  of  that 
fact. 

Ans.  5. — I  never  knew  it  or  heard  of  it  until  the  time  when  the 
plea  in  abatement  was  put  in  in  the  LTnited  States  Circuit  Court  in  the 
case  of  Tobin  vs.  Walkinshaw,  et  als,  something  more  than  a  year  ago. 
I  think  Messrs.  Peachy  &  Billings  first  learned  it  at  that  time,  as  they 
expressed  great  surprise  that  Mr.  Forbes  told  them  that  he  had  been 
naturalized  as  a  Mexican. 

Ques.  6. — State,  if  you  please,  what  was  the  opinion  of  Messrs. 
Peachy  &  Billings,  or  either  of  them,  of  Mr.  Forbes  civil  status,  formed 
from  their  knowledge  of  his  former  Mexican  citizenship,  and  upon  the 
fact  of  his  not  having  declared  within  a  year  after  the  date  of  the 
treaty  of  Guadalupe  Hidalgo,  his  intention  to  remain  a  Mexican  citi- 
zen, and  upon  not  having  removed  his  domicil  from  the  State  of  Cali- 
fornia. 

Ans.  6. — I  remember  hearing  Mr.  Peachy  tell  Mr.  Forbes  that  hav- 
ing been  a  naturalized  Mexican,  the  treaty  and  the  law  made  him  an 
American  citizen,  and  that  he  could  not  of  his  own  free  will,  while  re- 
maining here,  resume  his  allegiance  as  a  British  subject,  and  that  he 
(Mr.  Peachy)  must  so  plead  for  him  in  the  case. 

Ques.  7. — How  were  the  archives  kept  before  you  went  to  Lower 
California,  as  you  testified  on  your  cross  examination,  and  how,  after 
you  came  back,  and  what  endorsements  were  made  upon  documents 
filed  in  the  office  while  you  had  charge  of  the  archives,  and  when  were 
the  archives  moved  to  Benicia  ? 


374 

Ans.  7. — Before  I  went  to  Lower  California  in  1847,  the  archives 
were  kept  in  Gov.  Mason's  office,  most  of  them  in  boxes  in  one  corner 
of  the  room,  and  a  portion  which  had  been  assorted  by  Mr.  Hartnell 
wTere  in  an  open  closet  in  the  same  room.  Gov.  Mason  himself  kept 
the  key  of  the  office.  When  I  returned  to  Monterey  in  1848,  those 
assorted,  and  I  believe  all  those  suppose  to  relate  to  land  titles,  were  in 
a  desk  made  for  that  purpose,  and  locked,  the  key  of  which  I  kept 
from  that  time,  unless  absent  for  a  few  days  from  Monterey  when  it 
was  given  to  the  Governor.  I  do  not  remember  that  any  individual 
deposited  any  paper  in  the  archives  before  I  left  for  Lower  California, 
but  all  deposited  subsequently  to  my  return,  I  am  quite  certain,  were 
endorsed  in  the  manner  I  have  stated  in  my  cross-examination.  These 
archives  were  turned  over  by  me  to  Major  Canby  in  Monterey  in  Feb- 
ruary, 1850,  and  a  few  months  afterwards  were  by  him  removed  to  Be- 
nicia. 

Cross  Examination  Resumed. 

Ques.  1. — Are  the  "  Mr.  De  La  Torre,  Mr.  Jecker,  Mr.  Manuel 
Escandon  and  Mr.  E.  Barron,"  mentioned  in  your  answer  to  question 
4  of  direct  examination  resumed,  the  same  persons  of  those  names 
whom  you  have  mentioned  on  the  cross  examination  as  having  been  in- 
terested in  the  Almaden  mine,  and  were  they  interested  at  that  time  ? 

Ans.  1. — Mr.  De  La  Torre,  and  Mr.  Jecker  were  the  persons  whom 
I  have  mentioned  as  having  been,  as  I  understood,  interested  in  the 
mine  ;  only  Mr.  E.  Barron,  I  believe,  was  interested  at  that  time.  Mr. 
Escandon,  whom  I  have  mentioned  as  being  interested  in  the  mine,  I 
did  not  see  in  Mexico,  and  is  not  the  person  whom  I  have  mentioned 
in  the  answer  alluded  to. 

Ques.  2. — Is  the  Mr.  Frederick  Billings,  to  whom  the  deed  of  Cas- 
tillero,  which  you  have  spoken  of,  was  made,  in  1856,  the  same  Mr. 
Frederick  Billings  who  is  a  member  of  your  firm  of  Halleck,  Peachy 
&  Billings  ? 

Ans.  2. — He  is. 

(It  Avas  stipulated  by  the  Counsel  for  the  respective  parties  to  this 
cause,  on  the  examination,  that  this  deposition  is  taken  subject  to  all 
objections,  except  as  to  the  forms  of  questions  and  answers.) 

The  witness,  before  signing  the  deposition,  wishes  to  correct  a  state- 
ment made  by  him  in  his  cross  examination  with  respect  to  the  date 
of  his  return  from  Lower  California  in  1848  ;  on  reflection  he  thinks  he 
returned  in  the  latter  part  of  May  or  the  fore  part  of  June,  1848,  but 
can  remember  no  circumstance  by  which  to  fix  the  date. 

H.  W.  HALLECK. 


375 

Subscribed  and  sworn  to  before  me  this  5th  Nov.,  1857. 

cutler  McAllister, 

U.  S.  Com. 

Filed  Nov.  20th,  '57.  JOHN  A.  MONROE, 

Clerk. 


DEPOSITION  OF  BENJAMIN  DAVIDSON. 

United  States  District  Court,      ) 
Northern  District   of   California.  \ 

San  Francisco,  November  28, 1857. 

On  this  day  before  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States  for  the 
Northern  District  of  California;,  came  Benjamin  Davidson,  a  witness 
produced  on  behalf  of  the  United  States,  in  Case  No.  420,  being  an 
appeal  from  the  Board  of  Commissioners  to  ascertain  and  settle  the 
Private  Land  Claims  in  the  State  of  California,  in  case  No.  366,  on 
the  docket  of  the  said  Board  of  Commissioners,  and  was  duly  sworn 
and  testified  as  follows  : 

Present  :  The  District  Attorney  and  the  counsel  for  claimant. 

Questions  by  the  District  Attorney. 

Question  1. — Have  you  produced  the  box,  as  required  by  the  sub- 
poena duces  tecum  t 

Answer  1. — I  have. 

Question  2. — From  whom  did  you  receive  this  bo"x  ? 

^Answer  2. — From  Mr.  Laurencel  and  James  Alexander  Forbes. 
It  was  deposited,  subject  to  their  joint  order,  with  me  for  safe-keep- 
ing.    It  has  so  remained  ever  since. 

(Papers  produced  and  handed  to  the  clerk  to  be  marked.) 

Cross-Examined. 

This  box  was  deposited  with  me  about  six  or  eight  months  ago  by 
Mr.  Laurencel ;  Mr.  Forbes  came  with  him,  I  believe  ;  I  am  not  pos 
itive.     It  was  distinctly  understood  that  I  was  not  to  give  it  up  excep 
on  their  joint  order.     This  was  the  distinct  understanding.     The  bo: 
hss  been  taken  away  once  or  twice  on  the  written  order  of  the  parties 


376 

I  cannot  say  when  it  was  last  taken  away ;  one  order  was  in  writing ; 
cannot  say  whether  I  can  produce  it. 


DEPOSITION  OF  HENRY  LAURENCEL. 

Henry  Laurence!,  sworn  on  his  voire  dire. 

Question  1. — Have  you  any  interest  in  defeating  the  claim  of  An- 
dres Castillero  to  the  land  in  controversy  in  this  cause  ? 

Answer  1. — Yes,  sir. 

Q.  2. — What  is  the  nature  of  your  interest  ? 

A.  2. — I  have  an  interest  in  the  claim  of  Charles  Fossat,  and  the 
whole  claim  is  under  my  control. 

Q.  3. — What  claim  is  that  ? 

A.  3. — For  a  part  of  the  Rancho  de  los  Capitanciilos. 

Q.  4. — Under  what  grantee  ? 

A.  4. — Under  Justo  Larios. 

Q.  5. — How  .long  have  you  had  this  interest  ? 

A.  5. — Since  August,  1854. 

Q.  6. — Did  you  have  no  interest  before  that  time  ? 

A.  6. — I  had  no  interest,  but  was  managing  the  claim  of  Fossat. 

Q.  7. — When  did  he  acquire  his  interest? 

A.  7. — I  believe  his  first  mortgage  was  in  March,  1851.  His  next 
interest  was  in  January,  1852.  I  bought  for  him  at  sheriff's  sale 
three  undivided  fourths  of  the  Rancho. 

Q.  7. — Where  does  he  live  ? 

A.  .7 — In  the  neighborhood  of  Oroville. 

Q.  8. — To  whom  was  the  Rancho  granted  ? 

A.  8. — To  Justo  Larios. 

Q.  9. — What  portion  of  Fossat's  interest  do  you  hold  ? 

A.  9. — I  nold  one-half  of  the  interest  purchased  at  sheriff's  sale 
in  1852. 

Q.  10. — Who  holds  the  remaining  half? 

A.  10. — James  Eldridge. 

Q.  11. — From  whom  did  he  acquire  his  interest  ? 

A.  11. — From  Charles  Fossat,  in  March,  1854. 

q   \2. — What  did  you  give  him  ? 

A.  12. — A  large  amount  of  money  ;  the  amount  is  my  private 
business. 

Q.  13. — Do  you  know  the  mine  of  New  Almaden  ? 

A.  13.— I  do. 

Q.  14. — Do  you  claim  that  that  mine  is  on  your  land  ? 

A.  14. — According  to  my  best  knowledge  and  belief  it  is  so. 


377 

Q.  15. — You  have  then  a  pecuniary  interest   in   defeating  this 
claim  ? 
A.  15. — I  have. 

(Testimony  objected  to  on  ground  of  interest ;  taken  subject  to  ex- 
ception.) 

Witness  Sworn  in  Chief. 

Q.  17. — Look  at  those  papers,  (papers  produced  from  box)  ;  by 
whom  are  they  owned  ? 

A.  17. — By  James  Alex.  Forbes  and  myself. 

Q.  18. — How  did  you  acquire  an  interest  in  them  ? 

A.  18. — By  paying  for  them. 

Q.  18. — What  amount  did  you  pay  ? 

A.  18. — I  paid  a  large  amount ;  I  decline  to  say  the  amount. 

Q.  19. — When  did  you  purchase  them  and  for  what  purpose  ? 

A.  19. — I  purchased  them  between  November  1856,  and  March 
1857,  when  I  finally  bought  and  paid  for  them.  My  knowledge  of 
their  contents  induced  me  to  purchase  them. 

Q.  20. — Please  examine  the  papers,  and  state  in  whose  hand- wri- 
ting they  severally  are. 

A  20.— I  know  the  hand-writing  of  that  marked  "F.  No.  27."  It 
is  the  hand-writing  of  James  Alexander  Forbes.  I  know  it  well.  I 
have  seen  him  write.  The  endorsement  is  written  by  myself.  u  F. 
No.  26,"  is  also  in  his  hand-writing  ;  the  endorsement  is  also  in  his 
handwriting.  "F.  No.  25."  is  also  in.  his  hand-writing  ;  also  the  en- 
dorsement. 

(It  is  admitted  that  the  box  containing  the  papers  was  deposited  with 
B.  Davidson,  March  4,  1857. 

"  F.  No.  24."  is  in  the  hand-writing  of  James  Alexander  Forbes ; 
the  whole  of  it.  So  are  also  "  F.  No.  23,"  "  F.  No.  22"  and  "  F. 
No.  21."  "  F.  No.  16,"  "  F.  No.  20,"  and  «  F.  No.  12  ;"  these  I 
believe  to  be  in  the  hand-writing  of  Mr.  William  E.  Barron — but  I 
am  not  very  positive  about  it ;  my  only  means  of  information  is  from 
the  comparison  of  these  papers  with  a  private  letter  of  my  own  from 
Mr.  Barron. 

Q.  20. — Have  you  conversed  with  Mr.  James  Alexander  Forbes  as 
to  the  circumstances  under  which  those  letters  were  written  ? 

(Question  objected  to.     Question  withdrawn.) 

32 


37S 
Cross  Examination. 

Q.  21. — What  did  you  pay  Mr.  Forbes  for  those  papers  ? 
A.  22. — I  have  already  declined  to  answer  that  question. 

(The  Court  requires  the  witness  to  answer.) 

I  paid  Mr.  Forbes,  twenty  thousand  dollars  for  the  interest  that  I 
was  acquiring  in  depositing  these  papers,  and  the  engagement  on  his 
part  to  go  to  Mexico,  when  I  should  request  him  to  do  so,  and  procure 
for  me  the  proof  of  the  fraud  committed  in  this  case,  which  he  assured 
me  he  could  procure.  I  was  also  to  pay,  if  necessary,  his  traveling 
expenses. 

Q.  22, — Did  you  pay  in  cash  ? 

A.  22. — I  paid  one  half  in  cash,  and  gave  security  for  the  other 
half.  It  is  now  due.  The  contract  was  verbal.  I  gave  him  a  pledge 
before  witnesses  that  I  would  pay  him  the  money.  The  witnesses 
were  Mr.  Randolph,  Mr.  Crittenden,  and  Mr.  Gould.  I  promised 
him  not  to  sell  or  hypothecate  my  interest  in  my  Bancho  without  pay- 
ing him. 

Q.  23. — Why  did  you  not  put  it  in  writing  ? 

A.  23. — I  did  not  wish  to  ;  Mr.  Forbes,  I  believe,  was  satisfied ; 
Mr.  Eldridge  was  not  a  party  to  the  contract  at  the  time  it  was  made  ; 
he  subsequently  assented  to  it ;  I  paid  Mr.  Forbes  one-half  of  the 
$20,000  some  time  in  March,  1857 ;  Mr.  Eldridge  was  then  in  Phila- 
delphia ;  he  assented  to  my  contract  on  his  return  in  May,  1857  ;  he 
paid  one-half;  the  whole  amount  was  charged  to  the  debit  of  our 
Bancho. 

Q.  24. — What  then  did  you  mean  by  saying  he  adopted  the  con- 
tract, and  paid  you  one-half? 

A.  24. — I  never  had  mentioned  this  contract  to  him ;  I  made  it  on 
my  sole  responsibility ;  I  paid  to  Mr.  Forbes  this  money  for  the  joint 
use  of  those  papers. 

Q.  25. — What  did  you  mean  by  "joint  use"? 

A.  25. — I  understood  that  they  were  to  be  used  by  the  joint  consent 
of  both  ;  I  did  not  understand  that  1  purchased  the  sole  use  of  those 
papers  ;  the  papers  are  used  on  this  occasion  without  his  consent. 

Q.  26. — Did  you  ask  Mr.  Forbes'  consent  to  use  them  on  this  occa- 
wm ! 

A.  26. — I  did  ;  he  said  he  would  consult  counsel ;  after  consulting 
he  refused 

Q.  27. — How  long  did  it  take  you  to  drive  this  bargain  \ 

A.  27. — The   first  contract  was  made  with  him  about  Chis:ma3 


379 

time  ;  it  was  nearly  in  the  same  terms  as  the  last,  except  that  the  pa- 
pers were  to  remain  in  Mr.  Forbes'  possession. 

Q.  28. — How  much  did  he  ask  for  these  papers  ? 

A.  28. — I  did  not  bargain  any  ;  I  gave  him  the  price  he  asked. 

Q.  29.— Do  you  think  Mr.  Forbes  will  accept  the  last  half  of  this 
money  ? 

(Objected  to— withdrawn.) 

Q.  30. — Where  is  Mr.  James  Eidridge  ? 

A.  30. — I  don't  know ;  he  is  at  home,  or  in  New  York,  Philadel- 
phia, or  Washington. 

Q.  31. — Did  yon  read  those  papers  before  yon  bought  their  use  ? 

A.  31. — I  did.    I  have  not  requested  Mr.  Forbes  to  go  to  Mexico. 

Q.  32. — Do  you  know  what  were  Mr.  Forbes*  pecuniary  circum- 
stances? 

A.  33. — I  did  not  then  know  what  they  were  at  that  time ;  I  first 
learned  that  Mr.  Forbes  was  a  bankrupt  from  Mr.  Peachy's 
amination  of  him  in  the  case  of  the  United  States  ts.  Charles 
at  the  time  he  gave  that  deposition  I  had  already  made  an  agreement 
with  him  touching  these  papers  ;  I  received  an  interest  in  the  Alma- 
den  mine  in  payment  of  a  claim  I  had  against  him  ;  this  was  in  Au- 
gust. 1850  ;  I  have  sold  this  interest.  I  hare  stated  that  I  promised 
Mr.  Forbes  not  to  sell  or  mortgage  my  interest  in  the  Rancho  de  los 
Capitancillos  without  paying  him ;  that  pledge,  or  promise,  was  made 
last  night.  I  hare  been  active  in  procuring  testimony  and  employing 
counsel  to  defeat  this  claim  ;  I  consider  that  by  defeating  it  I  will  add 
greatly  to  the  value  of  my  Rancho  ;  I  consider  that  by  defeating  it  I 
will  remove  a  cloud  upon  my  title. 

Direct  Resumed. 

I  sold  the  interest  I  acquired  in  the  Almaden  mine,  early  in  1851. 

C-~33. — When  you  sold  it,  had  you  any  knowledge  of  these  papers? 

A.  33. — I  had  never  seen  any  papers  relating  to  the  New  Almaden 
mine.  The  oral  agreement  for  the  payment  of  the  last  $10,000,  was 
the  same  as  that  I  have  stated  to  have  been  made  in  the  presence  of 
Messrs.  Crittenden,  Randolph  and  Gould. 

Cross-Examtsattox  Resumed. 

I  endeavored  to  procure  a  compromise  by  means  of  these  papers, 
with  the  Almaden  Mining  Company;  it  was  through  Mr.  Hall 
McAllister.  They  were  also  exhibited  to  Mr.  John  Parrott  for  die 
same  purpose. 


380 

Direct. 

I  spoke  to  Mr.  Hall  McAllister,  both  before  and  after  his  employ- 
ment in  this  case,  as  a  proper  person  to  approach  as  representing  the 
interest  of  his  client ;  openly  and  without  concealment.  I  desire  to 
say  that  in  the  first  agreement  with  Mr.  Forbes,  he  imposed  upon  me 
the  obligations  to  make  an  offer  for  a  compromise  ;  I  then  sought  an 
interview  with  Mr.  Hall  McAllister,  sometime  in  January,  1857. 
When  Mr.  Parrott  saw  the  papers  it  was  not  at  my  instance  ;  the  ans- 
wer I  received  from  Mr.  Hall  McAllister  on  behalf  of  Mr.  Parrott 
being,  that  if  Mr.  Forbes  or  myself  had  such  documents  they  were 
fraudulent ;  I  then  ceased  all  negociation  on  this  subject.  Mr.  Parrott 
inspected  these  documents  at  his  request,  as  I  understood,  to  Mr. 
Crittenden.  • 

Q.  34. — Did  you  take  the  advice  of  counsel  as  to  the  expediency  of 
making  a  compromise  ? 

A.  84. — I  did  not ;  it  was  a  peremptory  condition  of  the  first  con- 
tract that  I  should  make  the  offer  of  compromise  through  Mr.  Hall 
McAllister. 

Cross-Examination. 

The  first  contract  was  in  writing  ;  it  was  cancelled  at  the  time  I 
made  the  second  contract.  The  second  contract  was  in  writing ;  I  have 
destroyed  my  counterpart ;  it  was  in  duplicate  ;  I  destroyed  it  by  the 
advice  of  counsel ;  I  did  not  preserve  a  copy  of  either  ;  I  thought  it 
would  be  inconsistent  with  the  object  with  which  I  destroyed  the  papers. 

H.  LAURENCEL. 
Sworn  to  before  me, 

OGDEN  HOFFMAN. 


DEPOSITION  OF  G.  W.  P.  BISSELL. 

Question. — Are  you  acquainted  with  Alexander  Forbes,  of  Tepic  ? 

Answer. — I  am  :  or  was,  a  few  years  ago.  I  know  the  handwriting 
of  Alexander  Forbes,  William  Forbes  and  Eustace  Barron. 

Q. — Look  at  "  F.  No.  1,"  and  say  in  whose  handwriting  it  is. 

A. — It  is  the  signature  and  handwriting  of  Alexander  Forbes. 

Letter  marked  "  F.  No.  2,"  is  in  the  handwriting  and  is  the  signa- 
ture of  Alexander  Forbes. 

Letter  marked  "F.  No.  3,"  is  also  in  the  handwriting  and  signature 
of  Alexander  Forbes. 

"  F.  N.  4,"  is  handwriting  and  signature  of  the  same. 


381 

"  F.  No.  5,"  is  handwriting  and  signature  of  the  same. 

"  F.  No.  6,"  is  handwriting  and  signature  of  the  same. 

"  F.  No.  7,"  is  handwriting  and  signature  of  the  same. 

"  F.  No.  8,"  is  the  handwriting  and  signature  of  the  same. 

"  F.  No.  9,"  is  handwriting  and  signature  of  the  same. 

"  F.  No.  10,"  is  handwriting  and  signature  of  the  same. 

"  F.  No.  11,"  is  the  handwriting  and  signature  of  the  same. 

"  F.  No.  12,"  is  a  press  copy  signed  in  the  name  of  Barron,  Forbes 
&  Co.     The  signature  is  in  the  handwriting  of  William  Forbes. 

"  F.  No.  13,"  is  the  handwriting  and  signature  of  Alexander  Forbes. 

"  F.  No.  14,"  is  the  same. 

"  F.  No.  15,"  is  the  same. 

"F.  No.  16,"  is  signed  by  Barron,  Forbes  &  Co.:  my  impression  is 
that  it  is  the  signature  of  Eustace  Barron,  a.  partner  in  the  house. 

"  F.  No.  17,"  is  handwriting  and  signature  of  Alexander  Forbes. 

"  F.  No.  18.,"  is  signature  of  Barron,  Forbes  &  Co.;  handwriting  of 
Eustace  Barron. 

"F.  No   19,"  is  handwriting  and  signature  of  Alexander  Forbes. 

"  F.  No.  20,"  is  signed  by  Barron,  Forbes  &  Co.;  the  signature  is 
that  of  Eustace  Barron. 

"F.  No.  21,"  is  a  Spanish  document ;  do  not  know  the  handwrit- 
ing :   it  appears  to  be  a  copy. 

The  Alexander  Forbes  I  have  spoken  of  was  a  partner  in  the  house 
of  Barron,  Forbes  &  Co.  in  1846 — 1847.  He  retired  from  the  firm  I 
think  in  1848. 

Mr.  Eustace  Barron  was  at  the  head  of  the  house.  Mr.  Alexander 
Forbes  resided  in  Tepic,  in  1847  and  1848,  up  to  the  time  he  left  the 
country,  which  I  think  was  at  the  close  of  1848.  He  has  since  resid- 
ed in  London.  I  am  not  certain  as  to  the  time  he  left.  Subsequent 
to  the  time  he  left,  a  son  of  Mr.  Eustace  Barron  was  taken  into  the  house. 
During  my  residence  at  Tepic,  Mr.  Alexander  Forbes  made  two  voy- 
ages to  California.  The  last  was  in  1847.  He  was  absent  about  six 
months.  He  must  have  been  in  Mexico  nearly  two  years  after  his  re- 
turn from  California.  I  saw  James  Alexander  Forbes  in  San  Bias,  in 
1847.  He  passed  through  on  his  way  to  Tepic.  It  might  have  been 
in  1849  ;  if  so,  it  was  before  June,  1849,  for  I  left  at  that  time.  San 
Bias  is  the  seaport  of  Tepic  ;  it  is  on  the  direct  road  to  Tepic.  I  saw 
Mr.  James  Alexander  Forbes  both  going  to  and  coming  from  Tepic. 

Cross-Examined  . 

In  1846  I  was  at  Mazatlan.  I  was  there  in  1845.  My  impression 
is  he  stopped  there  on  his  way  to  California.  I  would  not  like  to  swear 
that  he  was  here  in  1845-6.  I  feel  almost  morally  certain  that  he 
was.     I  am  certain  he  was  here  in  1847. 


382 
[F.  No.  1.— J.  A.  Monroe.     [0.  H.  No.  16.] 

Tepic,  11th  May,  1846. 
My  Dear  Sir  : 

I  wrote  to  you  at  great  length  on  the  15th  ult.  by  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Macnamara,  who  intends  visiting  California,  and  who  proceeded  to 
Mazatlan  in  order  to  procure  a  passage  ;  but  he  is  still  there,  and 
there  is  every  probability  that  he  will  go  by  the  vessel  which  takes  this. 
I  need  not  repeat  what  I  have  already  said,  but  it  may  not  be  amiss, 
in  case  of  my  letter  not  reaching  you,  to  state  that  its  object  was  to 
request  of  you  to  procure  as  correct  information  as  you  could  respect- 
ing the  quicksilver  mine,  or  mines,  lately  said  to  be  discovered  in  Cali- 
fornia, one  of  which  you  mention  as  being  worked  by  Mr.  Castillero. 
If  quicksilver  mines  of  value  are  discovered,  it  would  be  of  immense  in- 
terest for  Mexico,  as  owing  to  the  scarcity  and  high  price  of  this  arti- 
cle, the  poorer  silver  mines  of  Mexico  cannot  be  worked.  I  therefore 
beg  to  request  your  kind  attention  to  this  letter. 
I  am,  my  dear  sir, 

Your  most  obedient  servant, 

ALEX.  FORBES. 
(Addressed) 

James  A.  Forbes,  Esq., 

British  Vice  Consul, 

California. 
(Endorsed) 

Alex.  Forbes,  May  11th,  '46, 

rel.  to  quicksilver  mine.    No.  1. 


F.  No.  2.— J.  A.  Monroe.     [  0.  H.  No.  17.  ] 

2p  September,  1846. 
My  Dear  Sir  : 

I  am  much  obliged  to  you  for  your  offer  to  procure  for  me  more 
information  respecting  the  quicksilver  mines,  and  I  hope  they  may 
turn  out  to  be  of  value.  Anything  certain  which  you  may  give  me 
about  them  will  be  very  interesting,  as  our  mining  establishments  in  this 
country  must  greatly  be  benefitted  by  the  abundance  of  quicksilver, 
and  which  is  now  scarce  and  dear  here.  I  understand  Castaiiedo  is 
still  in  Mexico.  Does  not  one  of  these  mines  belong  to  him,  or  has  he 
disposed  of  it  ? 

I  am,  my  dear  sir, 

Yours  very  trulv, 

ALEX.  FORBES. 
J.  A.  Forbes,  Esq. 


383 

I  received  your  power  of  attorney  to  James  Murray,  Esq.,  and  for- 
warded it  by  last  packet. 

(Endorsed) 

Alex.  Forbes,  Sept.  2d,  '46, 
rel.  to  Quicksilver  Mine,  No.  2. 

(In  pencil.)     A.  Forbes,  Private,  1st  and  2d  Sept.  1846. 


F.   No.  3.— J.  A.  Monroe.     [  0.  H.   No.  18.  ] 

Tepic,  7th  January,  1847. 
James  A.  Forbes,  Esq.,  California, 
My  Dear  Sir  : 

I  had  the  pleasure  to  receive  your  very  obliging  letter  of  the  29th 
of  October  last,  which  chiefly  relates  to  the  mine  of  quicksilver  about 
which  I  wrote  you  at  so  much  length  by  Mr.  Macnamara.  I  had  pre- 
vious to  the  receipt  of  your  letter  been  in  treaty  with  D.  Andres  Cas- 
tillero,  respecting  this  mine,  and  on  the  arrival  of  Mr.  Macnamara 
with  the  powers  from  the  other  proprietors,  the  treaty  was  much  facil- 
itated, and  I  am  now  happy  to  inform  you  that  I  have  contracted  for 
the  "  Habilitation  "  of  the  mine,  and  have  also  purchased  a  part  of  Mr. 
Castillero's  "  Barras,"  all  of  which  will  be  made  known  to  you  by  Mr. 
Walkinshaw,  who  goes  to  California  as  my  attorney  and  agent  for  the 
examination  and  working  of  the  mines.  Mr.  Walkinshaw  will  wait  upon 
you  as  soon  after  his  arrival  as  possible,  and  will  show  you  all  the  doc- 
uments, and  ask  your  advice  and  assistance  in  carrying  out  my  views. 

It  is  needless  for  me  to  say  more,  than  that  I  count  on  you  as  a 
friend  who  will  lend  your  best  assistance  to  bring  this  negotiation  to 
a  good  account,  and  as  you  inform  me  that  you  are  the  proprietor  of 
two  "  Barras,"  it  will  be  for  your  interest,  and  that  of  all  others  con- 
cerned, that  every  means  may  be  used  to  make  the  most  of  it. 

I  have  sent  up  a  small  sum  of  money  to  make  a  beginning,  and  if 
Mr.  Walkinshaw  is  of  opinion  that  the  business  ought  to  be  carried  on 
to  a  large  extent,  the  necessary  apparatus  will  be  ordered,  and  ample 
funds  sent  to  carry  on  the  business  properly. 

I  have  for  the  present  only  sent  114  iron  bottles,  but  I  can  get  a 
large  quantity  in  this  country  when  they  may  be  required. 

Mr.  Walkinshaw  will  inform  you  that  everything  is  left  open  respect- 
ing the  interest  which  he  and  others  may  take  in  this  enterprise,  and 
and  I  trust  you  will  also  leave  to  me  the  regulation  of  the  affair  which 
must  depend  on  after  prospects.  For  the  present  I  wish  no  one  to  run 
any  risk  or  to  incur  any  expense  but  myself,  which,  however,  you 


384 

must  be  aware  will  be  very  considerable  ;  but  if  the  mine  turns  out 
well  there  will  be  sufficient  for  all. 

I,  in  conclusion,  beg  leave  to  recommend  most  strongly  my  friend 
Mr.  Walkinshaw  to  your  best  attentions  and  assistance,  and  I  am  sure 
you  will  find  him  most  worthy  of  your  confidence. 

I  am,  my  dear  sir, 

Yours  most  sincerely, 

ALEX.  FORBES. 
(Endorsed) 

Alex.  Forbes, 

relative  to  mine  of  quicksilver, 

7th  Jan'y,  1847.     No.  5. 


F.   No.  4.— J.  A.  Monroe.     [  0.  H.   No.  19.  ] 

Monterey,  1st  Oct.,  1847. 
James  A.  Forbes,  Esq., 
My  Dear  Sir  : 
You  will  no  doubt  be  surprised  to  hear  of  my  being  in  Monterey, 
and  I  am  so  myself.     I,  however,  resolved  to  take  a  trip  to  this  coun- 
try, which  I  have  so  long  wished  to  visit,  and  arrived  last  afternoon  in 
the  "  William,"  where  I  have  been  kindly  received  by  the  authorities, 
and  no  difficulty  of  any  kind  thrown  in  my  way. 

I  have  sent  to  Mr.  Alden  to  come  over  here,  if  he  can,  and  take 
some  people  to  the  mine  which  I  have  brought  with  me,  and  it  is  very 
probable  I  shall  accompany  him,  when  I  shall  have  the  pleasure  to  see 
you. 

Mr.  Walkinshaw  has  come  with  me,  but  without  his  family.  He 
has  been  very  ill  all  the  voyage,  and  is  now  on  shore  in  a  very  weak 
state,  but  I  hope  he  will  soon  recover.  I  have  a  thousand  things  to 
say  to  you,  but  must  wait  till  I  have  the  pleasure  of  seeing  you. 

Please  inform  the  good  Padre  Real  of  my  arrival,  and  tell  him  I 
don't  write  him,  as  I  am  a  bad  scribe  at  Castillano,  but  that  I  shall 
soon  be  at  his  domicile. 

Believe  me  to  be,  my  dear  sir, 

Yours  very  sincerely, 

ALEX.  FORBES. 
We  have  had  32  days  passage. 

The  American  Army,  under  Gen.  Scott,  was  within  six  leagues  of 
the  City  of  Mexico.  10,000  men — and  a  battle  was  daily  expected. 
The  Mexican  say  they  have  32,000. 


385 


(Endorsed)  Alex.  Forbes, 

on  his  arrival  at  Monterey,  Oct.  1st,  1847.    No.  3. 
(In  pencil.)     Alex.  Forbes,  Monterey. 


F.   No.  19— J.  A.  Monroe.     [  0.  H.   No.  21.  ] 

Mina,  19th  Nov.,  1847. 
James  A.  Forbes,  Esq., 
My  Dear  Sir  : 

I  wrote  you  the  other  day,  which  did  not  find  you  at  home.  I  am 
still  here  preparing  the  appparatus  for  making  a  better  trial  of  the  ores, 
but  as  Mr.  Wallis  the  artizan  is  unwell,  we  go  on  but  slowly.  I  am 
also  very  anxious  to  have  the  mine  cleared  out  and  nut  in  a  proper 
working  state  before  I  leave  it,  and  for  this  purpose  we  have  been 
sinking  a  "  Plan  "  at  the  "  Respaldo  Alto  "  in  order  to  run  a  "  Tes- 
tero  "  across  the  vein,  and  to  discover  the  value  and  abundance  of  the 
ores  in  its  whole  width.  In  doing  this  we  have  most  unexpectedly 
found  that  in  this  "  plan  "  there  are  no  cinnabar  whatever,  although 
over  it,  in  the  upper  part  of  the  vein,  there  are  ores.  This  puzzles 
us  greatly,  but  we  hope  that  in  cutting  across  we  will  fall  in  again  with 
ores  towards  the  "  Respaldo  Bajo."  Can  this  mine  be  a  "  Manto  ?" 
I  must  verify  that,  and  so  must  you  and  the  Padre  with  your  own  eyes. 
I  see  very  good  ores  in  the  upper  part  of  the  mine  in  all  directions, 
but  why  does  it  get  into  Borra  lower  down  ?  The  Plan  is  about  five 
varas  lower  down  than  when  you  and  the  Padre  wrought,  and  on  the 
other  side  of  the  vein.  The  people  will  go  on  cutting  across,  and  when 
they  again  get  into  "  Metal  "  I  will  send  you  a  man  on  purpose.  I  am 
confident  we  shall  find  them,  but  there  will  always  be  about  two  varas 
or  more  of  the  vein  next  the  "  Respaldo  Alto  "  without  ores  ;  at  least  I 
think  so,  and  hope  nothing  worse  may  be  the  case.  We  still  see  good 
ores  on  the  upper  part  of  the  vein  near  the  "  Respaldo  Bajo,"  where 
you  and  the  Padre  took  out  your  ores. 

I  have  been  somewhat  alarmed  about  this  Borra,  but  I  hope  there 
will  ultimately  be  no  cause  for  this  ;  yet  I  have  thought  it  right  to  in- 
form you  and  the  Padre,  and  have  no  doubt  but  that  my  express  car- 
rier will  in  a  few  days  carry  better  news. 

I  am,  my  dear  sir, 

Yours  very  truly, 
(Endorsed)  ALEX.  FORBES. 

B. 
Alex.  Forbes,  Mine  of  Almaden,  Nov.  19,  1847. 

(Addressed)     Sr.  D.  Diego  A.  Forbes, 

Ausente,  Al  Sr.  Padre  Real,  Santa  Clara. 


386 
F.   No.  5— J.  A.  Monroe.     [  0.  H.  No.  23.  ] 

Mine,  24th  Nov.,  1847. 
For  Mr.  J.  A.  Forbes  ) 

and  V  Santa  Clara : 

The  Padre  Real,  ) 
We  have  at  last  found  the  vein  or  "  cinta  "  of  ores  which  we  were 
looking  for,  so  that  I  have  now  the  pleasure  to  inform  you  and  the  good 
Padre  of  our  luck  as  I  promised  I  should  do  ;  but  I  fear  the  mine  will 
be  reduced  to  this  "  cinta,"  and  the  great  body  of  it  will  be  "  Tesse- 
tate  Muerto." 

But  perhaps  this  cinta  may  be  wider  below  than  it  is  above.  To 
see  whether  this  is  so  or  not  has  been  the  object  of  our  labors,  since 
discovering  the  proper  direction  of  the  vein  of  the  whole  mine,  which 
discovery  makes  everything  more  plain. 

This  direction  was  before  entirety  mistaken,  of  which  and  other 
things,  we  will  have  a  great  deal  to  talk  about  when  we  meet.  When 
Mr.  Walkinshaw  arrives  and  takes  a  look  at  the  mine,  I  think  we  shall 
take  a  turn  to  the  mission.  I  expect  him  to  be  at  Bernal's  Rancho 
this  afternoon. 

I  may  say  now,  that  it  is  impossible  we  can  go  off  the  main  vein  of 
the  mine,  as  it  is  entirely  different  from  the  walls  (Respaldos,)  they 
being  of  hard  rock  of  quite  different  character,  whereas  the  vein  is 
quite  soft  and  easily  distinguished. 

All  we  have  to  do  is  to  look  for  the."  cintas"  which  have  got  ores, 
which,  in  my  opinion,  will  be  reduced  to  one,  not  very  wide. 

A.  FORBES. 
(Endorsed)  Alex.  Forbes, 

Mine  of  Almaden,  Nov.  24,  1847.     No.  4. 


F.  No.  6— J.  A.  Monroe.     [  0.  H.  No.  20.  ] 

N.  Almaden,  19th  Jan.,  1848. 
My  Dear  Sir  : 

I  am  very  much  obliged  to  you  for  your  very  prompt  attention  to 
the  business  in  hand,  and  return  the  expediente  immediately. 

I  am  much  surprised  at  the  result  of  your  assay,  and  shall  try  what 
I  have. 

It  will  of  course  be  better  to  say  nothing  about  it,  particularly  as  I 
have  already  written  to  Monterey  that  there  is  no  mine,  nor  does  there 
appear  to  be  any  quantity  of  this  kind  of  stuff.  I  hope  soon  to  see  the 
Alcalde. 

My  dear  sir,  yours  truly, 

A.  FORBES. 


387 

(Directed)      Jas.  A.  Forbes,  Esq.,  &c.  &c.  &c., 

Santa  Clara. 
(Endorsed) 

Alex.  Forbes,  New  Almaden,  19th  Jan.,  1848.   No.  6,  No.  6. 
(In  pencil) 

Suiiol  4},  Sainse  4J,  Pena  4J,  Narbaez  4J,  Padre  4,  Forbes  2. 


F.   No.  25— J.  A.  Monroe.     [  0,  H.   No.  24.  ] 
SENOR  JUEZ  DE  PAZ. 

Alejandro  Forbes  a  nombre  de  simismo,  y  de  sus  consocios  duenos  de 
la  mina  de  plata,  oro,  y  azogue,  conocida  con  el  nombre  de  Santa  Clara ; 
y  ahora  llamada  Nueva  Almaden  ;  y  a  nombre  de  la  compania  formada 
para  su  laborio  y  avio  de  la  misma,  ante  V.  como  mas  haya  lugar  en 
derecho,  espongo :  que  la  Ordenanza  de  mineria  en  su  titulo  IX.  art.  10, 
previene  que  toda  mina  debe  visitarse  y  examinarse  por  peritos  nom- 
brados  por  el  Juez,  a  fin  de  cerciorarse  si  son  trabajadas  conforme  a 
dha  ordenanza.  Y  deseando  el  que  forma  cumplir  con  las  leyes ;  A.  Y. 
como  Juez  competente  (por  falta  del  tribunal  a  quien  le  toca  enten- 
der  en  la  materia)  le  suplico  se  sirva  de  pasar  con  los  testigos  de  su 
asistencia,  a  la  espresada  mina,  a  inspeccionar  las  obras  y  labores  de 
ella,  ahora  en  corriente,  conforme  la  ordenanza  de  la  materia ;  como 
tambien  a  reconocer  el  rumbo  y  echado  de  la  veta  de  la  enunciado  mina 
a  su  actual  profundidad  ;  con  el  objeto  de  reformar  y  enmendar  (pues 
hay  lugar  para  ello,)  los  terminos  de  la  primera  acta  de  posesion  y 
para  corregir  tambien  cualquiera  otra  equivocacion  que  en  ella  parezca ; 
segun  el  titulo  VIII.  art.  11  de  la  misma  ordenanza  :  particularmente  a 
decidir  el  aumento  de  pertenencias  que  deben  de  poseer  los  duenos  de 
la  citada  mina,  y  su  habilitador  por  si  mismo,  y  como  reprsentante  de 
aquellos  ;  y  la  cuadra  que  corresponde  a  las  dichas  pertenencias  con- 
forme al  verdadero  echado  de  la  veta.     Por  lo  que — 

A.  V.  suplico  se  serva  demandar  proveer  el  presente  escrito  en  los 
terminos  espuestos ;  y  practicadas  que  sean  las  diligencias  que  se  me 
devuelvan  para  el  debido  resguardo  y  fines  que  convengan  a  los  intere- 
sados,  sirviendo  de  admitir  este  en  papel  simple  por  falta  total  del 
sellado  en  este  departmento. 

Pueblo  de  San  Josd,  19  de  Enero  de  1848. 

(Endorsed)      Copy  of  memorial  to  Alcalde  for  examination  of 
mine  and  extension  of  pertenencias.     1848. 


[Translation  of  the  Preceding  Document.] 
TO  THE  JUSTICE  OF  THE  PEACE. 

Alexander  Forbes,  in  the  name  of  himself  and  his  associates,  owner 
of  the  mine  of  silver,  gold  and  quicksilver,  known  by  the  name  of  Santa 


388 

Clara,  and  now  called  New  Almaden,  and  in  the  name  of  the  company 
formed  for  the  working  and  furnishing  of  the  mine,  before  you,  as  may 
be  most  proper  in  law,  represent  that  the  mining  Ordinance,  in  Title 
IX.  Art.  10,  provides  that  every  mine  ought  to  be  visited  and  exam- 
ined by  skilful  persons  named  by  the  judge,  for  the  purpose  of  ascer- 
taining if  they  are  worked  in  conformity  to  said  ordinance ;  and  the 
subscriber  desiring  to  comply  with  the  laws,  prays  you,  as  the  compe- 
tent judge  (for  want  of  the  tribunal  to  whom  it  belongs,  to  judge  in  the 
matter)  that  you  will  be  pleased  to  go  with  your  assisting  witnesses  to 
the  said  mine  to  inspect  its  works  and  labors  now  being  carried  on,  in 
conformity  to  the  ordinance  upon  the  subject ;  as  also  to  determine  the 
direction  and  inclination  of  the  vein  of  the  said  mine  to  its  present 
depth  for  the  purpose  of  reforming  and  correcting  (since  there  is  occa- 
sion for  it)  the  boundaries  of  the  former  act  of  possession,  and  to  correct 
also  such  other  mistakes  as  may  appear  in  it,  according  to  Title  VIII. 
Art.  11,  of  the  same  ordinance,  particularly  to  decide  upon  the  in- 
crease of  pertenencias  which  ought  to  be  possessed  by  the  owners  of 
the  said  mine  and  its  contractor  for  himself,  and  as  the  representative 
of  the  former,  and  the  square  which  corresponds  to  the  said  pertenen- 
cias, in  conformity  to  the  true  inclination  of  the  vein. 

Wherefore,  I  beseech  you  that  you  will  be  pleased  to  have  this 
writing  carried  into  execution  in  the  terms  expressed,  and  when  the 
proceedings  are  taken,  that  they  may  be  returned  to  me  for  the  just 
protection  and  ends  which  may  suit  the  persons  interested,  you  being 
pleased  to  admit  this  on  common  paper,  from  the  total  want  of  sealed 
paper  in  this  department. 

Pueblo  de  San  Jose',  19th  of  January,  1848. 


F.   No.  8— J.  A.  Monroe.     [  0.  H.   No.  22.  ] 

New  Almaden,  1st  February,  [1848.] 
James  A.  Forbes,  Esq., 

My  Dear  Sir  : 

I  received  an  express  last  evening  giving  me  all  the  news  from 
Mexico,  and  informing  me  of  the  Natalia  being  about  to  sail  for  the 
Mexican  coast  and  by  which  I  have  taken  the  opportunity  to  forward 
letters  to  Mexico. 

I  have  had  the  imprudence  to  open  your  despatch.  They  told  me 
that  it  contained  newspapers  and  as  I  knew  Gen'l  Millers  hand,  and  it 
being  a  public  letter,  and  that  perhaps  it  might  contain  letters  for  me 
which  I  could  not  get  if  sent  on,  in  time  to  allow  me  to  write  (if  so  re- 
quired) by  the  Natalia  ;  for  all  these  reasons  I  broke  open  the  packet. 
But  although  I  know  you  will  not  be  offended  at  what  I  have  done,  yet 
I  would  rather  not  have  done  so,  as  I  think  nothing  whatever  can  jus- 


389 

tify  one  in  opening  directed  letters  to  others  without  their  previous 
sanction. 

You  will  find  by  the  Alcanal  of  Guad*  and  the  Iris,  what  is  going  on 
in  Mexico,  and  what  my  friends  in  Monterey  write  is  to  the  same  pur- 
pose. The  present  party,  Pena  y  Pena,  Herrera,  Otero,  Bustamente 
&  Co.,  are  by  far  the  most  respectable  party  in  the  Republic,  and  there 
is  a  better  chance  for  their  doing  something  better,  either  for  peace  or 
war  than  ever  that  most  infamous  rascal,  Santa  Anna,  and  his  party 
would  have  done.  Now  that  they  have  got  rid  of  that  blackguard, 
there  are  better  prospects  than  before,  but  the  present  party  want  en- 
ergy, and  the  third  party,  the  Puros,  (Democrats,)  will  most  probably 
upset  them,  when  greater  confusion  than  ever  will  ensue. 

You  will  find  that  the  American  President  is  getting  more  courage 
in  prosecuting  the  war  than  before,  and  has  recalled  Mr.  Trist,  desiring 
the  Mexicans  to  send  to  Washington  if  they  wanted  peace.  I  have,  as 
you  know,  always  thought  that  on  their  getting  possession  of  c  great 
part  of  Mexico,  and  their  volunteers  covering  themselves  with  glory,  the 
war  would  become  popular,  and  they  would  go  ahead  and  possess  them- 
selves of  the  whole  of  the  Mexican  Republic — particularly  when  they 
have  got  over  the  fears  of  European  interference. 

You  may  now  take  my  opinion  a  little  farther,  and  set  down  Mexico 
as  already,  virtually,  a  part  and  portion  of  the  Union,  alias  the  U.  S. 

It  is  said  that  Gen.  Yanes  goes  to  Tepic  with  4,000  men,  he  is  a  su- 
perior kind  of  man,  and  a  most  intimate  friend  of  ours,  so  that  our  in- 
terests there  will  be  protected  in  as  far  as  depends  upon  him. 

As  Asconas  letter  gives  a  very  good  summary  of  the  news,  I  send 
it  for  your  perusal. 

This  being  a  rainy  day,  and  being  desirous  to  communicate  what  I 
know  in  the  shape  of  news,  I  inflict  upon  you  this  long  epistle. 
I  am  my  dear  sir,  yours  very  truly, 

ALEX.  FORBES. 

Please  explain  all  this  news  to  my  good  friend  the  Padre. 
You  will  see  by  Gen.  Millers  list  what  a  crash  there  has  been  in 
England.     None  of  our  friends  are  in  this  black  list.     Liverpool  and 
Glasgow  seem  to  suffer  most. 

I  am  my  dear  sir,  yours,  &c, 

A.  F. 

(Addressed) 

James  A.  Forbes,  Esq.,  &c.  &c.  &c, 

Santa  Clara. 

(Endorsed) 

Alex.  Forbes,  New  Almaden,  1st  Feb.,  1848.     No.  7, 


390 
F.   No.  18— J.  A.  Monroe.     [  0.  H.   No.  27.  ] 

Tepic,  11th  April,  1849. 
Jas.  Alex.  Forbes,  Esq.,  San  Francisco. 
Dear  Sir: 
We  beg  leave  to  refer  you  to  Mr.  Alex.  Forbes'  letter  of  the  9th 
inst.,  respecting  the  arrangement  of  the  affairs  of  the  Mine  of  New 
Almaden,  and  beg  to  recommend  that  negotiation  to  your  best  care 
and  management  until  we  can  forward  the  necessary  instructions  for 
your  goverment.     You  may  now  rely  on  this  Mine  being  worked  to 
the  utmost  of  its  capabilities  of  production  and  sale  of  quicksilver  on 
the  arrival  of  the  apparatus,  and  we  hope  to  make  up  for  the  delay 
which  circumstances  have   hitherto  prevented  this  important  concern 
from  being  productive.     We  shall  soon  have  the  pleasure  of  sending 
you  a  list  of  the  company  of  which  the  "  Habilitadores  "  are  composed. 
The  House  of  Jecker,  Torre  &  Co.,  of  Mexico  and  Mazatlan,  and  our 
.own  are  chiefly  interested,  and  as  Don  Ysidoro  de  la  Torre  has  gone 
to  Europe,  he  will  concert  with  Mr.  Barron  everything  which  can  tend 
to  the  successful  development  of  this  enterprise. 
We  are,  dear  sir, 

Your  most  obedient  servants, 

BARRON,  FORBES  &  CO. 
(Endorsed)     Barron,  Forbes  &  Co.     C 

Relative  to  Habilitacion  of  New  Almaden. 
April  11th,  '49. 


F.  No.  20— J.  A.  Monroe.     [  0.  H.  No.  1.  ] 

Tepic,  20th  May,  1849. 
James  A.  Forbes,  Esq., 
Sir: 
From  certain  circumstances  which  you  have  communicated  to  us,  it 
may  be  necessary  to  purchase  some  lands  in  the  vicinity  of  the  Mine 
and  Hacienda  of  New  Almaden,  in  California.     We  hereby  empower 
you  to  make  such  purchases  as  may  be  necessary  to  the  secure  pos- 
session of  this  Mine  and  Hacienda,  or  to  effect  such  other  arrange- 
ment as  you  may  deem  necessary  for  that  purpose — the   price  of 
such  purchase  not  to  exceed  five  thousand  dollars,  without  consulting 
with  us  upon  the  subject. 

We  are,  sir, 

Your  most  obedient  servants, 

BARRON,  FORBES  &  CO. 

(Addressed)      James  A.  Forbes,  Esq.,  California. 
(Endorsed)        Barron,  Forbes  &  Co,, 

Authorizing  the  purchases  of  land,  J. 


391 

F.   No.  21— J.  A.  Monroe.     [  0.  H.   No.  2.  ] 

Copia.  Muy  Reservado. 

Nota  de  los  Documentos  que  Don  Andres  Castillero  debera  conse- 
guir  en  Mejico. 

1°  La  plena  aprobacion  y  ratificacion  por  el  Gobierno  Supremo  de 
todos  los  actos  del  Alcalde  del  Distrito  de  San  Jose',  en  la  Alta  Cali 
fornia,  en  la  posesion  dada  por  dicho  funcionario,  de  la  mina  de  Azogue 
ubicada  en  su  jurisdiction,  a  Don  Andres  Castillero  en  Diciembre  de 
1845. 

2°  Un  titulo  de  concesion  absoluta  y  sin  condicion,  de  dos  sitios  de 
ganado  mayor,  a  Don  Andres  Castillero,  expresando  los  linderos  sigui- 
entes. 

Por  el  norte  con  terrenos  del  Rancho  de  San  Vicente  y  los  Capitan- 
cillos ;  por  el  Este,  Sur,  y  Oeste  con  terrenos  6  serranias  baldias. 

3,  Las  fechas  de  estos  documentos  deberan  de  ser  arregladas  por 
Don  Andres  :  el  testimonio  de  ellos  tornado  en  debida  forma,  y  amas, 
cetificados  por  el  Ministro  Americano  en  Mejico,  y  remitido  a  Califor- 
nia cuanto  antes. 

Tepic,  Mayo  27,  de  1849. 
(Endorsed) 

Copy  of  memorandum  left  with  Alex. 
Forbes  for  Castillero  in  Tepic,  May 
27,  1849.     I. 


[Translation  of  the  Preceding  Document.] 
(Copy)  Very  Private. 

Memorandum  of  the  Documents  which  Don  Andres  Castillero  will 
have  to  procure  in  Mexico. 

1st.  The  full  approbation  and  ratification  by  the  Supreme  Govern- 
ment of  all  the  acts  of  the  Alcalde  of  the  District  of  San  Josd,  in  Up- 
per California — in  the  possession  given  by  the  said  officer  of  the  quick- 
silver mine  situated  in  his  jurisdiction,  to  Don  Andres  Castillero  in 
December,  1845. 

2d.  An  absolute  and  unconditional  title  of  two  leagues  of  land  to 
Don  Andres  Castillero,  specifying  the  following  boundaries :  On  the 
north  by  the  lands  of  the  Rancho  of  San  Vicente  and  Los  Capitancil- 
los,  on  the  East,  South  and  West  by  vacant  lands  or  vacant  highlands- 

3d.  The  dates  of  these  documents  will  have  to  be  arranged  by  Don 


392 

Andres.     The  testimony  of  them  taken  in  due  form,  and  besides  cer- 
tified to  by  the  American  Minister  in  Mexico  and  transmitted  to  Cal- 
ifornia as  soon  as  possible. 
Tepic,  May  27,  1849. 


(Endorsed) 


Copy  of  memorandum  left  with  Alex. 
Forbes  for  Castillero,  in  Tepic,  May 
27,1849.    I. 


F.   No.  23— J.  A.  Monroe.     [  0.  H.   No.  3.  ] 

(Copy)  Private. 

San  Francisco,  Oct.  28th,  1849. 
William  Forbes,  Esq.,  Tepic. 
My  Dear  Sir  . 

I  have  been  detained  at  this  place  until  the  present  moment,  occu- 
pied in  completing  the  arrangements  explained  to  B.  F.  &  Co.,  under 
the  date  of  yesterday,  having  raised  the  sum  of  127,180  fJJ  dollars, 
from  Probst  S.  &  Co.  and  Webster  alone. 

I  must  again  call  your  attention  to  the  importance  of  my  sugges- 
tions relative  to  the  perfecting  the  title  of  the  Mine  of  New  Almaden, 
and  without  entering  now  into  the  particulars  already  explained  to 
yourself  and  to  Mr.  Alex.  Forbes  verbally,  I  desire  only,  to  impress 
upon  your  mind  the  vast  importance  of  securing  from  the  Supreme 
Government  of  Mexico,  the  documents  comprised  in  the  memorandum 
left  with  Mr.  Alex.  Forbes,  when  I  was  in  Tepic,  for  Castillero.  By 
my  other  letters  by  this  conveyance,  you  will  be  informed  of  all  the 
particulars  of  the  transactions  that  have  occurred  recently  in  the 
affairs  of  the  Mine,  and  you  will  see  the  risk  in  which  this  valuable 
property  is  placed  by  the  delay  that  has  occurred  in  the  acquisition 
of  the  documents  referred  to. 

I  remain,  my  dear  sir, 
Yours  sincerely, 

JAMES  ALEX.  FORBES. 

(Endorsed) 

Copy  letter  to  Wm.  Forbes,  Private, 
from  San  Francisco,  Oct.  28th,  1849.     III. 


393 

F.    No.  22.— J.  A.  Monroe.     [0.  H.  No.  4.] 
(Private.)  copy. 

Santa  Clara,  Oct.  30th,  1849. 
Aeexander  Forbes,  Esq., 
My  Dear  Sir: 

By  my  letters  to  yourself  and  to  B.  F.  &  Co.,  from  the  22d  to  this 
day,  you  will  be  informed  of  the  great  danger  in  which  the  mine  of 
New  Almaden  has  been  thrown,  and  the  disagreeable  and  vexatious 
proceedings  caused  me  by  Mr.  Walkinshaw  and  his  associates,  in  their 
denunciation  of  the  mine  for  abandonment :  You  will  however  have 
the  satisfaction  of  knowing  also,  that  I  am  to  be  reinstated  in  the  pos- 
session of  that  property,  both  Mine  and  Hacienda,  in  two  or  three 
days  hence,  by  judicial  process. 

Although  I  feel  much  gratified  at  my  successful  defence  of  the 
case,  yet  I  am  extremely  apprehensive  of  furthur  difficulties,  in  the 
event  that  those  parties  shoujd  succeed  in  purchasing  the  part  of  the 
land  of  the  Berreyesas  that  they  have  offered  to  purchase,  (which 
embraces  the  mine  and  hacienda,)  for  twenty-five  thousand  dollars — 
just  five  time3  the  amount  you  all  authorised  me  to  pay  for  the  same 
identical  tract ! 

Figure  to  yourself  the  position  of  the  affair  of  the  mine  if  I  do 
not  strike  boldly  at  our  opponents,  by  purchasing  the  land  at  a  higher 
price  than  they  have  offered  to  pay  for  it,  and  by  thus  frustrating  their 
plans,  secure  the  mine  and  hacienda  from  further  risk. 

You  will  now  readily  perceive  the  great  importance  of  my  advice 
to  you  to  purchase  a  part  both  of  the  lands  of  Cook  and  of  the  Ber- 
reyesas. You  were  of  the  opinion  that  this  measure  would  not  be 
necessary,  in  view  of  the  supposed  facility  of  getting  the  title  to  the 
mine  perfected  in  Mexico. 

It  is  now  more  than  five  months  since  it  was  decided  that  Castillero 
should  procure  the  necessary  documents  in  that  city,  and  that  they 
should  be  sent  to  me  as  soon  as  possible.  On  the  one  hand,  I  depend 
upon  the  precarious  and  illegal  possession  of  the  mine,  granted  by  the 
Alcalde  of  this  District  to  Castillero,  who  was  in  reality  the  Judge  of 
the  quantity  of  land  given  by  the  Alcalde  ;  and  on  the  other  side,  I  am 
attacked  by  the  purchasers  of  the  same  land,  declared  by  Castillero 
himself  to  comprise  the  mine.  In  the  absence  of  the  all  important 
document  of  the  ratification  of  the  possession  so  given,  I  am  compelled 
to  purchase  the  part  of  the  land  of  the  Berreyesas  which  Walkinshaw 
and  his  party  have  offered  to  purchase,  and  you  must  not  be  surprised 
if  I  shall  go  far  beyond  the  price  that  they  have  offered,  because  it  is 
the  only  mode  of  securing  the  title  to  the  mine  and  hacienda  ;  for  if 
Castillero  should  fail  in  getting  the  desired  documents  from  Mexico,  it 
is  the  sole  mode  of  safety  of  this  property. 
33 


394 

I  shall  endeavor  to  procrastinate  as  far  as  possible  this  purchase, 
and,  moreover,  to  frustrate  all  the  plans  of  Walkinshaw  and  his  asso- 
ciates for  accomplishing  their  purchase,  and  I  do  entreat  you  to  use 
every  eifort  to  send  me  the  document  of  the  ratification  of  possession 
of  the  mine,  and  the  grant  of  land  thereon,  at  the  very  earliest  oppor- 
tunity, properly  authenticated  and  certified  as  explained  by  me  when 
I  was  in  Tepic.  In  one  of  my  pre  cited  letters  I  requested  you  to 
send  me  a  certified  power  of  attorney  from  B.  F.  &  Co.  to  you,  au- 
thorizing you,  as  the  representative  of  the  Compania  de  Abio,  to  appoint 
other  attornies  in  fact  under  you. 

The  object  of  this  is  to  be  able  to  refute  the  allegations  of  the  law- 
yer of  Walkinshaw,  that|you  had  no  power  to  authorize  me  to  take 
charge  of  the  mine. 

I  remain,  my  dear  sir, 

Yours  truly 
JAS.  ALEX.  FORBES. 

(Endorsed)   Copy  of  a  letter  to  Alex.  Forbes. 
Private.     Oct.  28,  '49.     II. 


F.  No.  16.— J.  A.  Monroe.     [0.  H.  No.  5.] 

Tepic,  30th  November,  1849. 
James  A.  Forbes,  Esq.,  Santa  Clara, 
Dear  Sir: 

We  had  the  pleasure  to  write  you  on  the  13th  inst.  by  the  steamer 
"  Oregon,"  the  chief  object  of  which  was  to  enclose  a  notarial  copy 
of  the  grant  of  land  by  the  Mexican  Governmeut  to  Castillero,  and 
which  we  hope  has  come  safe  to  hand. 

We  have  perused  with  much  interest  and  attention  the  whole,  of 
your  letters  and  documents  received  by  the  steamers,  the  "  California' 
and  "  Panama,"  and  we  beg  you  will  excuse  us  from  minutely  enter- 
ing into  a  reply  to  those  valuable  and  important  papers.  Suffice  it 
to  say,  that  we  not  only  approve  of  your  proceedings,  but  have  to  give 
you  our  most  sincere  thanks  for  the  most  energetic  and  able  conduct 
in  the  whole  affair,  and  we  have  to  request  that  you  will  not  hesitate 
continuing  to  take  such  steps  as  may  seem  to  you  fit  for  securing  the 
mine  from  all  attempts  made  by  evil  minded  persons  to  impede  its 
being  freely  worked  for  its  legitimate  owners. 

We  are  glad  to  find  that  you  had  not  been  obliged  to  purchase 
Berriesa's  land.  This  is  certainly  a  most  important  point,  and  we 
trust  that  the  document  sent  will  be  of  great  consequeuce  in  that  res- 
pect, but  you  will  of  course  take  care  that  no  risk  is  run,  and  you  will 
■do  in  this  affair  as  your  best  judgment  shall  direct  you,  keeping  in  view 
that  at  all  hazard  and  at  whatever  cost  the  property  of  the  mine  must 


395 

be  secured.  Castillero  we  expect  will  soon  be  here  from  Lower  Cal- 
ifornia, and  if  anything  can  be  done  in  Mexico  he  is  the  fittest  person 
to  procure  what  may  be  wanted.  It  is  incredible  that  Mr.  Walkin- 
shaw  should  lend  himself  to  such  proceedings  when  he  considered  the 
very  large  capital  invested  in  this  enterprise,  and  when  he  well  knows 
that  by  the  mining  laws  no  "  denuncio"  could  possihy  be  heard  under 
the  circumstances  in  which  this  mine  has  been  occupied.  We  trust 
however  that  these  vile  machinations  will  be  by  your  active  proceed- 
ings be  put  ai>  end  to. 

We  hope  you  will  by  the  time  this  reaches  you  have  got  up  at 
least  a  part  of  the  apparatus,  and  that  some  of  it  will  be  soon  at  work. 
The  price  of  quicksilver  here  still  keeps  up,  and  the  supply  as  yet  not 
abundant.  Every  body  writes  of  the  very  high  price  it  bears  in  Cal- 
ifornia, and  we  have  no  doubt  you  will  in  a  short  time  be  able  to  supply 
the  demand  and  to  send  us  the  surplus  to  San  Bias.  Trusting  to  the 
continuance  of  your  best  exertions  in  behalf  of  all  concerned  in  the 
mine  of  New  Alinaden, 

We  are,  dear  sir, 

Your  most  ob't  servants, 

BARRON,  FORBES  &  CO. 
(Endorsed) 

Barron,  Forbes  &  Co., 

30th  Nov.  1849. 

No.  16. 


F.  No.  7.— J.  A.  Monroe.     [0.  H.  No.  6.] 

Tepic,  30th  Nov.,  1849. 
James  A.  Forbes,  Esq.,  Santa  Clara. 
My  Dear  Sir: 
I  have  received  your  most  valuable  letters  by  the  two  last  steamers, 
"  California"  and  "  Panama,"  the  latest  dates  being  up  to  the  13th  of 
the  present  month,  and  which  gives  the  agreeable  notice  of  Walkin- 
shaw's  most  villainous  proceedings  having  been  upset.  I  hope  you 
will  forgive  me  for  not  entering  minutely  into  all  the  proceedings.  But 
I  can  assure  you  that  we  all  feel  the  obligation  we  owe  to  you  for  the 
very  able  and  decisive  measures  you  have  adopted  in  the  whole  of  this 
affair,  and  I  recommend  you  to  proceed  without  fear  of  disapproval,  or 
waiting  for  instructions,  in  taking  such  measures  as  shall  preserve  this 
valuable  "  negociacion"  from  any  risk  from  those  unprincipled  claim- 
ants, who  have  lately  given  you  so  much  trouble,  or  from  any  other 
proceedings  which  may  take  place  ;  being  sure  that  such  proceeding 
will  be  sanctioned  by  the  company.  We  are  quite  of  opinion  with  you 
that  we  should  not  be  lulled  into  secority  from  the  belief  that  other 


396 

proceedings  will  not  be  resorted  to,  and  that  principle  will  be  acted 
upon,  and  every  support  from  this  will  be  given  to  what  you  may  point 
out  as  necessary. 

As  you  will  not  I  hope  have  now  to  employ  the  large  sum  you  ex- 
pected to  do  in  the  purchase  of  the  Berriesa's  lands,  you  will  have  a 
large  amount  of  funds  for  the  object  of  the  mines.  All  the  drafts  and 
orders  for  the  value  of  gold  have  been  honored. 

We  are  glad  to  learn  that  Mr.  Probst  has  been  so  active  in  assisting 
you,  and  it  gives  me  in  particular  much  pleasure  to  find  such  a  good 
understanding  betweeu  you.  I  most  earnestly  hope  the  same  friend- 
ship will  take  place  between  you  and  Dr.  Tobin. 

Notwithstanding  the  many  difficulties  you  must  have  in  transporting 
the  cargo  of  the  Vicar  of  Bray,  yet  I  hope  a  part  of  the  apparatus  will 
soon  be  got  up,  to  supply  the  demand  of  the  Placeres  as  well  as  to 
send  us  some  here.  It  is  of  much  importance  to  realize  as  much  as 
possible  of  the  large  capital  which  now  lies  in  the  mine,  laid  out  by 
the  Habilitadores,  and  to  secure  to  the  owners  of  Barrs  something  cer- 
tain against  an  evil  day  which  may  sometime  or  other  overtake  us. 

In  new  countries  nothing  is  very  certain,  and  I  for  one,  (and  in 
which  I  am  sure  you  will  agree  with  me,)  am  most  desirous  to  be  in 
possession,  and  to  see  others  in  possession  of  at  least  a  part  of  the  riches 
of  this  mine,  which  has  cost  me  and  others  so  much  thought,  and  so 
much  labor.  This,  I  as  an  individual,  and  for  the  good  of  all,  beg  leave 
to  impress  strongly  upon  your  attention. 

I  am,  my  dear  sir, 

Yours,  very  sincerely, 

ALEX.  FORBES. 
(Endorsed)  No.  8. 


F.  No.  9.— J.  A.  Monroe.     [0.  H.  No.  7.] 

Very  Private.  Tepic,  1st  Dec,  1849. 

James  A  Forbes,  Esq.,  Santa  Clara — 
My  Dear  Sir  : 

The  document  sent  up  to  you  by  the  last  steamer  for  the  grant  of  the 
lands  to  D.  Andres  Castillero,  was,  by  mistake,  not  the  one  meant  to 
be  sent.  I  find  now  that  the  proper  one  was  registered  by  me  in  Mon- 
terey, and  the  original  deposited  there. 

The  one  sent  you  was  directed  at  foot  to  the  Governor  of  California, 
and  the  one  deposited  at  Monterey  was  directed  to  D.  Andres  Castil- 
lero. The  difference  is,  that  by  one  the  delivery  by  the  Governor  was 
perhaps  necessary  to  make  the  grant  valid,  whereas  the  other  being 
addressed  directly  to  D.  Andres,  did  not  require  that  formality,  nor 
was  any  other  proceeding  necessary,  thus  making  it  a  better  document 


397 

than  the  greater  part  of  the  other  titles  for  lands  in  California.  I 
fear  you  may  have  made  use  of  the  notarial  copy  sent — if  not,  you 
will  of  course  apply  for  the  copy  of  the  one  at  Monterey  ;  I  however, 
have  hopes  that  your  well  known  cleverness  will  have  enabled  you  to 
find  out  this  mistake,  which  would  show  itself,  if  you  had  applied  for 
the  document  from  Monterey.  And  at  all  events  you  may  be  enabled 
to  withdraw  the  one  sent  and  substitute  the  other  ;  either  however  I 
take  to  be  as  good  as  the  usual  California  titles,  few  of  which  have  been 
officially  delivered  or  sanctioned  by  the  local  authorities. 

Another  difficulty  however  occurs.  A  document  was  made  out  in 
the  City  of  Mexico  when  I  purchased  the  Bars  from  Castillero,  for 
the  purpose  of  securing  his  consent  and  approval  of  the  contract  of 
Habilitacion ;  in  this  document  is  also  inserted  the  grant  of  the  two 
sitios,  being  an  exact  copy  of  what  has  been  sent  you,  and  directed  to 
the  Governor.  All  this  will  show  you  how  that  matter  stands.  And 
as  I  think  this  document  may  be  of  use  to  you,  I  send  a  copy  of  the 
whole,  leaving  you  to  your  own  good  judgment,  to  make  such  use  of 
of  this  document,  and  of  what  I  communicate,  as  you  shall  think  proper. 

I  shall  send  the  document  alluded  to  in  a  separate  cover  to  Probst, 
Smith  &  Co.  I  am,  my  dear  sir, 

Yours,  very  truly, 

ALEX.  FORBES. 

There  is  an  approval  of  the  Habilitacion  in  all  the  documents  of  the 
sale  of  the  other  Bars. 

(Endorsed)      No.  9. 


F.  No.  10.— J.  A.  Monroe.     [0.  H.  No.  8.] 

(Private)  Tepic,  7th  Jan  y,  1850. 

James  A.  Forbes,  Esq.,  Santa  Clara — 
•"  My  Dear  Sir  : 

I  have  received  by  Acapulco  and  Mexico  along  with  your  other 
correspondence,  your  private  letters  to  me,  of  the  25th  and  28th  of 
November,  and  beg  to  refer  you  to  the  letters  of  B.,  F.  &  Co.  on  the 
business  of  the  Mine. 

I  am  very  sorry  indeed  to  gee  that  there  is  likely  to  be  a  difference 
between  you  and  Dr.  Tobin.  This  is  a  circumstance  which  may  lead 
to  very  bad  consequences,  and  it  is  strange  that  Tobin  should  throw 
obstacles  in  the  way,  when  he  sees  you  surrounded  with  so  many 
already,  and  which  can  only  tend  to  lessen  his  own  profits. 

It  is  clearly  to  be  understood  that  no  verbal  agreement  was  made 
here  with  any  one,  nor  any  promises  given  which  is  not  consistent  with 


398 

the  contract,  as  it  is  written.  His  brother  never  was  engaged,  on  the 
contrary  he  told  me  that  his  brother  went  to  see  what  could  be  done 
in  California,  and  if  nothing  offered,  he  would  send  him  back  to  take 
our  portraits.  This  might  have  been  said  as  a  joke,  but  shows  that  no 
employment  at  the  Mine  was  intended  for  him. 

No  maintenance  for  himself,  (Dr.  T.)  or  family,  was  ever  intended. 
He  looked  out  here  for  a  cook,  and  took  up  one  for  that  purpose.  His 
new  contract  is  much  more  advantageous  than  his  former  one  with  me, 
as  he  has  his  per  centage  on  the  whole  3  without  limitation.  I  have 
read  over  this  second  contract  with  care,  and  it  appears  to  me  quite 
clear  in  respect  to  his  charge  at  the  Hacienda. 

"  Art.  2.  The  aforesaid,  James  Tobin  agrees  to  direct  the  operations 
of  the  extraction  of  the  Quicksilver  to  the  best  of  his  abilities,  and  is  to 
have  the  said  operations  under  his  exclusive  management." 

This  does  not  show  that  he  shall  have  the  general  management  of 
the  Hacienda. 

One  of  the  causes  for  altering  the  contract,  and  for  cancelling  the 
limitation  of  his  profits  was,  to  make  the  contract  less  onerous  as  to 
the  supply  of  ores,  people,  and  necessaries,  which  you  will  perceive 
by  the  4th  Article.  You  are  only  bound  to  supply  "  as  amply  as  cir- 
cumstances will  allow"  whereas,  by  the  original  contract  with  me,  it 
was  obligatory  on  us  to  supply  all  these  which  he  might  require. 

This  in  the  present  state  of  things  is  I  consider  of  much  conse- 
quence. 

This  is  my  opinion  of  what  Mr.  Tobin  has  a  rigid  to  demand,  but  I 
am  sure  you  will  not  stand  on  mere  points  of  right,  or  risk  the  inter- 
ests of  negociacion  for  trifling  pretentions  which  may  be  put  forth. 
Much  must  be  sacrificed  in  principle  to  conciliate  a  troublesome  person, 
and  I  still  most  earnestly  hope  that  your  prudence  will  enable  you  to 
keep  up  cordiality  between  you.  I  shall  write  my  opinion  to  Dr. 
Tobin,  and  give  him  my  strongest  advice  to  lay  aside  all  vexatious 
pretentions,  and  enjoin  him  to  proceed  in  good  will  and  amity,  which 
can  only  tend  to  his  own  interests  and  those  concerned  in  the  Mine. 
I  hope  he  will  listen  to  my  advice. 

The  amonnt  of  capital  is  getting  to  be  enormous,  and  the  company 
are  beginning  to  get  astonished.  If  however  you  can  once  get  under 
way  all  will  be  well,  if  you  could  only  get  a  couple  of  cylinders  up  in 
any  temporary  way.     They  would  supply  the  Placeres. 

Whenever  you  have  more  than  is  wanted  for  that,  you  will  of  course 
send  it  down  here,  more  or  less  by  the  steamer. 

Strange  as  it  appears  to  me,  a  Mexican  merchant  "  Lizardo,"  sends 
up  136  flasks  by  this  steamer,  and  between  2  and  300  go  by  next 
conveyance.  It  is  shipped  by  B.  F.  &  Co.,  as  agents  !  We  have  not 
one  bottle  here  ;  but  there  are  still  of  the  California  Quicksilver  in 
Sonora. 


399 

I  am  glad  you  have  taken  young  Mr.  Thom  into  your  house  ;  please 
remember  me  to  him,  as  also  to  Mrs.  Forbes,  and  your  family. 
I  am,  my  dear  sir,  &c.  Yours  truly, 

A.  FORBES. 

Webster  will  go  up  with  a  Pacatillo,  by  this  steamer  if  he  can  get 
his  things  on  board.     If  vou  can  do  anything  for  him  it  will  oblige  me. 

A.  F. 

By  the  tenor  of  your  letters  I  have  hopes  that  you  will  have  got  rid 
of  the  villainous  proceedings  of  Walkinshaw  and  his  party. 

I  hope  the  document,  which  now  goes  up,  (the  Habilitacion,  &c.,) 
will  be  useful.  Castillero  is  still  somewhere  in  Lower  California.  We 
have  not  heard  from  him,  but  he  must  be  somewhere  about  La  Paz. 

Mr.  Spence  of  Monterey  writes  me  of  date  the  22d  Nov.,  that 
he  had  advanced  to  Mr.  Walkinshaw  about  $2,000,  and  informs  me 
that  although  he  had  written  him  several  times  he  had  received  no 
answer  and  that  neither  principal  nor  interest  had  been  paid.  I  have 
advised  Mr.  Spence  to  inquire  of  you  respecting  this  transaction. 

I  hope  Mr.  Probst  with  you  assistance  if  necessary  will  push  the 
claim  of  the  Mazatlan  debt  against  Mr.  Walkinshaw. 

I  have  a  letter  from  Alden,  in  which  he  speaks  of  Walkinshaw  in 
strong  terms.  I  hope  you  will  keep  poor  Alden  in  your  service  ;  he 
speaks  of  his  former  services  not  being  properly  paid  for,  and  of  his 
accounts  not  being  settled. 

(Endorsed)     No.  10. 


F.   No.  15*— j.  A  Monroe.     [  0.  H.   No.  14.  ] 

Santa  Clara,  29*  Jan'y  1850. 
My  Dear  Sir, 
I  have  rec4  the  copy  of  the  contract  of  Habilitacion  and  as  you  re- 
quest me  to  address  myself  to  B.  F.  &  C°.  on  the  affairs  of  the  mine, 
I  have  now  written  to  them  upon  this  particular  subject  to  which  I 
request  your  earnest  attention,  not  as  regards  the  habilitacion,  but  an- 
other document  which  you  know  of. 

I  am,  my  dear  sir, 

Your  faithfully, 

JAS.   ALEX.   FORBES. 


400 
F.  No.  11.— J.  A.  Monroe.     [0.  H.  No.  9.] 

Very  Private.  Tepic,  Feb.  3d,  1850. 

James  A.  Forbes,  Esq.,  Santa  Clara — 
My  Dear  Sir  : 

I  had  the  pleasure  to  write  you  of  date  the  7th  January,  which 
went  by  last  month's  steamer,  to  which  I  refer.  I  have  since  received 
your  letters  by  Reyes  dated  the  27th  and  31st  of  Dec,  and  8th  of 
Jan.  I  shall  not  go  minutely  into  the  whole  valuable  information  you 
give  me,  nor  into  the  statements  so  very  interesting  to  myself  and  those 
concerned  in  the  mine  of  New  Almaden.  By  those  communications  I 
have  every  reason  to  believe  that,  by  your  indefatigable  and  energetic 
proceedings  you  will  be  enabled  to  defeat  all  the  vile  attempts  which 
have  been  made  to  rob  the  legitimate  owners  of  their  property. 

The  conduct  of  Dr.  Tobin  is  inexplicable,  but  I  think  I  can  perceive 
that  you  are  somewhat  of  opinion  that  he  may  be  heard  and  pro- 
tected by  the  Company,  but  I  will  at  once  put  you  right  upon  that 
point,  and  assure  you  such  will  not  be  the  case.  All  here  are  most  in- 
dignant at  his  conduct.  You  must,  and  will,  be  supported,  and  all  I 
wish  and  hope  for  on  your  part  is,  that  you  act  in  a  manner  towards 
him  which  may  enable  you  if  possible  to  avoid  a  rupture  and  conten- 
tions, which  may  lead  to  bad  results.  You  say  that  Dr.  Tobin  comes 
down  in  the  next  steamer,  if  so  he  will  be  here  in  a  few  days.  This 
I  shall  not  be  sorry  for,  the  matter  would  then  be  soon  settled.  He 
would  most  assuredly  not  be  asked  to  return,  nor  even  permitted.  He 
has  no  right  to  desert  his  post,  and  I  hope  you  have  not  given  him 
leave  of  absence.  I  have  no  doubt  but  that  you  could,  with  Gay,  Al- 
den,  and  the  other  person  you  mention,  do  well  enough  for  a  time,  and 
easily  put  up  a  part  of  the  apparatus  and  work  it  until  a  proper  scien- 
tific person  can  be  procured  and  sent  up  to  you. 

It  so  happens  that  almost  the  whole  of  the  "  Accionistas"  and  "  Avia- 
dores"  of  the  mine  will  be  here  in  a  few  days.  Mr.  Barron  is  now 
here,  and  is  attorney  for  those  absent.  La  Torre  comes  here  to  visit 
Mr.  B.  Castillero  has  returned  and  is  also  here,  so  am  I  and  William 
Forbes.  This  leaves  out  only  the  four  California  Bars,  and  I  think  I 
may  venture  to  act  for  you  if  necessary,  as  you  verbally  told  me  I 
might.  This  will  give  us  power  to  deal  with  Dr.  Tobin  if  he  comes 
this  way,  and  to  regulate  any  other  matters  which  may  be  thought  ne- 
cessary. For  my  own  part  I  have  no  power  as  you  know,  the  man- 
agement being  in  the  hands  of  others,  and  therefore  I  beg  you  will  take 
all  I  say  as  purely  'private  and  confidential,  without  attaching  any  au- 
thority to  my  suggestions.  But  of  course  as  I  am  a  proprietor,  and  in 
the  confidence  of  the  managers  and  other  proprietors,  my  opinions  and 
advice  may  be  worth  attending  to,  and  be  of  some  use  to  yourself  as 
well  as  to  them.  I  shall  continue  to  write  to  you  as  long  as  I  remain 
here  and  will  be  most  happy  at  all  times  to  hear  from  you. 


401 

I  wrote  by  last  packet  to  Dr.  Tobin  as  a  friend  and  attempted 
to  conciliate  him  in  a  mild  way,  perhaps  he  makes  two  much  of  this  let- 
ter, and  I  think  it  better  to  send  you  a  copy  to  enable  you  to  see  ex- 
actly what  I  have  said  to  him.  His  leaguing  himself  with  Mr.  Walk- 
ingshaw  is  too  bad.  Reyes  has  told  me  of  all  that  has  passed,  which  is 
almost  incredible.  I  am  glad  to  find  that  you  are  peaceably  to  get  rid 
of  Mr.  W.  Mr.  Tobin  has  sent  a  plan  of  his  proposed  establishment, 
this  you  must  on  no  account  allow  to  be  put  in  execution.  You  are 
aware  that  it  would  never  do  to  go  about  large  magnificent  works  at 
once,  particularly  as  you  know  the  whole  must  be  at  the  cost  of  the 
"  Aviadores"  and  left  for  the  proprietors  at  the  end  of  the  contract. 
You  are  acting  for  the  Aviadores,  and  it  is  your  duty  to  restrict  the 
works  within  reasonable  bounds,  and  to  only  erect  temporary,  and  ab- 
solutely necessary,  works  until  some  funds  shall  be  realized  from  the 
mine.  However  desirous  that  it  may  be  that  the  works  should  be  set 
up  by  Dr.  Tobin,  yet  if  he  will  not  go  on  in  good  faith,  or  if  he  at- 
tempts to  injure  the  company,,  or  refuses  to  obey  your  just  commands, 
and  resists  your  authority,  or  stops  or  impedes  the  works,  and  thereby 
breaking  his  contract,  I  think  he  may  be  discharged  by  you,  always 
taking  care  that  you  have  a  very  clear  case,  and  nothing  left  in  doubt 
to  cause  litigation.  But  this  is  only  my  private  opinion.  I  have  no 
authority  to  empower  you  to  do  so,  but  it  would  no  doubt  be  approved 
by  the  Company,  none  of  whom  look  favorably  on  the  Doctor's  proceed- 
ings. The  most  effectual  and  safe  way  however  would  be  his  coming 
here  without  leave.  He  has  not  written  by  last  opportunity,  nor  will 
he  be  written  to  by  this  Steamer. 

I  have  every  reason  to  believe  that  the  documents  you  mention  will 
be  found  in  the  City  of  Mexico,  and  as  Mr.  Castillero  will  return  there 
they  will  no  doubt  be  procured,  but  we  are  at  some  loss  to  know  what 
is  exactly  wanted,  and  I  beg  you  will,  by  next  steamer,  give  a 
sketch  of  the  documents  you  allude  to,  particularly  a  description 
of  the  limits  of  the  grant.  I  think  you  must  not  have  received 
the  information  sent  you  of  the  existence  of  the  grant  of  the  two  sitios 
directly  to  Castillero,  and  registered  in  Monterey,  nor  am  I  sure  if 
this  will  mend  the  matter.  In  a  few  days  however  we  will  again  hear 
from  you  and  act  accordingly. 

One  last  resort  I  will  mention  to  you,  and  it  is  with  great  repug- 
nance that  I  do  so,  which  is,  that  if  the  Berreyesas  were  unreasonable 
and  untractable,  or  insist  on  the  extension  of  their  lands  to  our  hacienda, 
the  company  would  be  justified  in  promoting  the  invalidation  of  their 
own  title  to  their  Rancho. 

If  they  make  it  over  to  any  one  else,  and  particularly  to  our  enemies, 
certainly  this  course  must  be  pursued.  If  no  opposition  or  disclosures 
are  made,  and  if  the  American  government  turn  out  to  be  liberal  in 
conceding  the  Ranchos  to  the  present  holders,  the  Berreyesas  and  others 


402 

may  be  left  in  possession,  but  if  active  measures  were  taken  by  an  ad- 
verse party,  many  of  the  titles  would  be  worthless,  and  I  have  reason 
to  think  from  what  came  to  our  knowledge  when  I  was  in  California, 
the  title  of  the  Berreyesas'  is  not  of  the  best.  This  I  throw  out  for 
your  consideration,  and  I  should  think  these  people  would  do  them- 
selves no  good  in  opposing  you. 

We  think  at  present  that  it  may  be  the  best  place  to  get  an  authen- 
ticatad  copy  of  the  approval  of  the  Mexican  government  of  the  grant 
of  three  thousand  varas  given  by  the  Alcalde  on  giving  possession  of 
the  mine.  As  a  doubt  may  be  started  as  to  whether  the  Alcalde  act- 
ing as  the  "  Juez  de  Mineria,"  had  a  right  to  make  this  grant,  yet  if 
approved  of  the  government  of  Mexico  before  the  possession  of  the 
country  by  the  Americans,  there  could  be  no  doubt  on  the  subject. 
This  takes  in  our  hacienda,  and  unless  opposed  by  the  Berreyesas  would 
I  should  think  settle  the  question. 

Castillero  says  such  approval  wa3  given,  and  that  on  his  arrival  in 
Mexico  he  will  procure  a  judicial  copy  of  it.  This  is  the  plan  we  shall 
adopt  if  we  hear  nothing  from  you  to  alter  this  resolution.  Since 
writing  the  foregoing  I  have  looked  over  your  private  letter  to  Wm. 
Forbes,  dated  18th  October,  and  find  you  state  the  limits  or  bounda- 
ries, as  follows : 

"  The  boundaries  must  be  expressed  as  joining  on  the  north,  and 
northwest,  by  lands  of  the  Ranchos  de  San  Vicente,  and  de  los  Capi- 
tancillos,  and  on  the  east,  south,  and  west,  by  Serainia  or  <  tierras  bal- 
dias.'  " 

Castillero  is  not  certain  of  accomplishing  this  latter  plan,  and  thinks 
the  first,  that  is,  the  8,000  varas  the  best. 

There  goes  up  by  this  steamer  another  bill  against  Mr.  Walkinshaw 
and  in  favor  of  B.,  F.  &  Co.,  for  $1,000,  so  that  Probst,  Smith  &  Co. 
have  in  our  favor  and  against  him  : 

By  A.  Forbes,  accepted, 1 1,758 

B.,  F.  &  Co.,  about 10,000 

Id.  bill 1,000 

In  all 112,758 

I  am,  my  dear  sir, 

Yours,  very  truly, 

ALEX.  FORBES. 
I  send  you  five  Altas,  newspapers, 

(Endorsed) 
Private.     A.  F.,  3d  Feb.,  1850.     Answered  26th  Feb.  No.  11. 


403 
F.  No.  24.— J.  A.  Monroe.     [0.  H.  No.  9.] 

Copy.     Private.  New  Almaden,  Feb.  26,  1850. 

Alexander  Forbes,  Esq., 
My  Dear  Sir, 

Your  favor  of  the  3d  instant  came  duly  to  hand,  and  in  an- 
swer to  that  part  of  it  relating  to  the  documents  sent  up  to  me  in  Nov., 
serving  as  titles  to  this  property,  I  will  again  address  you  "  por  sep- 
erado." 

I  really  did  have  more  faith  in  the  tact  and  ability  of  Castillero,  to 
perceive  the  important  objects  set  forth  in  my  memorandum  of  what 
was  to  be  done  nine  months  ago,  in  Mexico  by  that  eccentric  individual, 
and  that  with  the  powerful  influence  that  he  was  to  have  exercised  by  the 
efficient  aid  that  was  to  be  lent  to  him,  he  would  meet  with  no  obstacle  to 
the  attainment  of  the  important  documents  explained  in  that  memoran- 
dum. But  Castillero  has  deceived  himself,  for  he  thought  that  bound- 
aries were  not  necessary,  as  I  shall  presently  shew  you.  He  succeeded 
in  obtaining  the  grant  of  two  sitios  to  himself  on  the  mining  possession 
in  Santa  Clara  while  that  very  act  of  possession  declares  that  the  mine 
is  situated  on  the  lands  of  one  Jose  R.  Berreyesa,  five  leagues  distant 
from  Santa  Clara,  and  you  will  at  once  perceive  that  such  a  discrepancy 
would  not  fail  to  attract  the  attention  of  the  U.  S.  Land  Commission- 
ers and  to  put  the  case  of  the  mine  in  great  risk  in  the  judicial  ordeal 
to  which  its  title  will  be  subjected. 

Without  troubling  you  with  what  I  have  so  many  times  written  and 
explained  to  you  verbally,  on  the  importance  of  the  acquisition  of  the 
document,  I  will  only  say  now,  what  it  must  be,  and  it  is  this : 

1st.  A  full  and  complete  ratification  of  all  the  acts  of  the  Alcalde 
of  this  jurisdiction  in  the  possession  of  the  mine. 

2d.  A  full  and  unconditional  grant  to  Castillero  of  two  sitios  of  land 
covering  that  mining  possession,  expressing  the  boundaries  stated  by 
me  in  the  memorandum  I  left  with  you  in  Tepic.  Both  of  these  docu- 
ments to  be  of  the  proper  date,  and  placed  in  the  proper  Governmental 
custody  in  Mexico,  and 

3d.  The  necessary  certified  copies  of  them  duly  authenticated  by 
the  American  Minister  in  that  capital,  taken  and  sent  to  me  at  the 
earliest  possible  moment. 

You  will  receive  my  advice  of  the  19th  inst.  regarding  my  views  of 
not  supplying  W,  with  any  quicksilver. 

Yours  sincerely, 

JAS.  ALEX.  FORBES. 

(Endorsed) 

Copy  of  letter  to  A.  F. 

Private, 
IV.     Feb.  26, 1850. 


404 
F.   No.  12— J.  A.  Monroe.     [  0.  H.   No.  10.  ] 

Tepic,  2d  March,  1850. 
James  A.  Forbes,  Esq.,  New  Almaden, 
Dear  Sir, 

We  duly  received  your  letters  up  to  the  29th  of  January 
per  steamer  Panama,  which  have  had  our  best  attention,  and  as  our 
friend,  Dn  Ysidoro  de  la  Torre  of  Mazatlan  has  been  appointed,  and 
has  consented  to  proceed  by  this  steamer  to  California,  with  full  powers 
to  act  in  behalf  of  all  concerned,  it  is  needless  to  enter  into  any  partic- 
lars  respecting  the  various  matters  contained  in  your  letters,  as  you 
will  be  enabled  personally  to  communicate  your  views  to  him  ;  and  to 
arrange  everything  in  the  best  manner  possible.  Mr.  de  la  Torre  came 
to  Tepic  to  meet  Mr.  Barron  and  the  others  concerned  in  this  negoci- 
ation,  and  it  was  deemed  necessary  that  some  of  the  partners  in  the 
"  Habilitacion  "  should  proceed  to  New  Almaden  in  order  to  consult 
personally  with  you,  and  to  arrange  respecting  the  future  operations  of 
this  enterprise,  and  Mr.  de  la  Torre  has  been  prevailed  upon,  at  much 
inconvenience  to  himself,  to  undertake  the  present  charge. 

We  are  sure  that  no  one  could  be  named  more  agreeable  to  you, 
than  Mr.  De  la  Torre,  and  have  no  doubt  but  that  his  presence  will  be 
most  useful  in  sanctioning  and  arranging  a  plan  of  future  operations, 
and  of  assisting  in  adjusting  any  difficulties  which  now  exist,  particu- 
larly as  he  has  the  full  authority  of  the  association  to  act,  as  to  him 
shall  appear  necessary.  Mr.  De  la  Torre  takes  up  with  him  Dr.  Tobin 
in  the  hopes  that  he  will  resume  his  labors,  and  act  in  conformity  with 
his  duty. 

Mr.  Barron  and  Don  Andres  Castillero  are  about  to  proceed  to  the 
City  of  Mexico,  and  will  attend  to  what  you  have  recommended. 
Soliciting  your  kind  attentions  to  our  friend  Mr.  De  la  Torre, 
We  are,  dear  sir, 

Your  most  obedient  servants, 

BARRON,  FORBES  &  CO. 
(Endorsed) 

No.  12. 


F.   No.  14— J.  A.  Monroe.     [  0.  H.   No.  11.  ] 

Tepic,  11th  March,  [1850.] 
My  Dear  Sir: 

The  Oregon's  letters  have  just  come  up,  and  I  give  this  a  chance 
of  reaching  San  Bias  before  the  arrival  of  the  Panama  steamer.  Mr. 
Barron  and  Castillero  have  gone  off  to  Mexico,  and  I  write  them  to- 
day respecting  the  Document  you  know  of,  which  if  possible  will  be 


405 

procured.  The  news  of  your  having  got  up  4  Cylinders  gives  us  all 
much  joy,  and  I  gave  the  good  news  to  my  friends.  M.  La  Torre 
don't  expect  this — unless  he  knows  by  the  Steamer  which  touched  at 
Mazatlan.  You  will  perhaps  see  him  and  Dr.  Tobin  before  this  reaches 
you,  who  both  go  by  this  conveyance.  Let  us  have  Quicksilver  and 
all  will  be  well. 

I  am  most  happy  to  hear  you  have  found  an  abundant  mine  of  Lime- 
stone, this  is  of  much  importance.  Your  official  letter  about  the  vessel 
will  be  forwarded  to  the  Foreign  Office. 

In  great  haste,  yours  truly, 

A.  FORBES. 
(Endorsed) 

Alex.  Forbes,  March  11th,   No.  14. 


F.   No.  13— J.  A.  Monroe.     [  0.  H.   No.  13.  ] 

Tepic,  7th  April,  1850. 
James  A.  Forbes,  Esq., 

N.  Almaden, 
My  Dear  Sir : 

I  wrote  to  you  by  the  California,  dated  the  23d  February,  and 
since  then  have  received  by  the  u  Oregon  "  yours  of  the  19th  of  that 
month.  I  was  very  happy  to  hear  that  you  had  got  up  some  of  the 
Cylinders,  and  trust  that  you  are  at  this  time  distilling  Quicksilver.  I 
hope  Dr.  Tobin  will  now  attend  without  any  difficulty  to  the  superin- 
tendence of  the  apparatus,  and  am  sure  that  you  will  on  your  part  do 
everything  in  your  power,  to  promote  harmony,  and  forward  the  inter- 
ests of  all  concerned.  You  will  I  know  find  great  relief  and  pleasure 
by  the  arrival  of  your  friend  La  Torre.  He  will  during  his  stay  take 
much  responsibility  off  your  shoulders,  and  from  his  decision,  and  con- 
ciliatory disposition,  assist  in  smoothing  many  of  the  difficulties  which 
surround  you.  Mr.  Barron  and  Castillero  have  arrived  in  Mexico, 
and  have  every  prospect  of  finding  the  documents  you  are  aware  of, 
and  which  will  of  course  be  forwarded  as  soon  as  possible. 

I  am,  my  Dear  Sir, 

Yours  very  truly, 

ALEX.  FORBES. 
I  forward  a  letter  received  from  Mr.  Murray  of  the  Foreign  Office. 

(Addressed) 

James  A.  Forbes,  Esq.,  New  Almaden. 
(Endorsed) 

Alex.  Forbes,  7th  April,  1850. 
Answd.  28th.     No.  13. 


406 
F.  No.  15— J.  A.  Monroe.     [  0.  H.   No.  13.  ] 

Private.  Tepic,  6th  June,  1850. 

James  A.  Forbes,  Esq., 

Santa  Clara, 
My  Bear  Sir  : 

I  had  the  pleasure  to  receive  jour  letter  of  the  28th  of  April 
by  the  steamer,  but  of  course  not  in  time  to  reply  by  the  one  from 
Panama,  which  arrived  the  day  after  that  from  San  Francisco. 

I  remark  what  you  say  of  Dr.  Tobin  and  the  cylinders,  which  has 
caused  me  some  uneasiness,  and  I  wait  with  anxiety  to  know,  how  those 
he  is  putting  up  himself  will  succeed,  which  we  expect  to  do  by  the 
steamer  which  ought  to  arrive  at  San  Bias  on  the  10th  inst. 

I  find  that  it  has  been  deemed  necessary  to  appoint  an  American 
citizen  as  manager  of  the  mine,  and  am  most  happy  to  know  that  this 
meets  with  your  approbation.  This  approval  on  your  part  I  am  quite 
sure  will  be  estimated  as  it  deserves,  and  shows  to  those  interested  in 
this  enterprize  that  you  do  not  hesitate  to  sacrifice  your  own  private 
interests  for  the  general  benefit  of  the  concern.  For  my  own  part,  I 
feel  most  grateful  and  highly  obliged,  and  the  members  of  the  house  of 
Barron,  Forbes  &  Co.  express  strongly  the  same  feeling. 

We  are  all  convinced  that  whoever  may  be  in  the  management  of 
the  New  Almaden  will  receive  the  assistance  of  your  knowledge  and 
experience,  and  the  company  and  proprietors  cannot  fail  to  be  sensible 
of  your  services.  It  gives  me  great  pleasure  to  hear  from  yourself,  as 
well  as  from  M.  La  Torre,  that  the  closest  friendship  had  existed 
between  you,  and  that  both  were  animated  by  the  same  desire  of  mak- 
ing the  mine  productive.  I  had  the  pleasure  to  know  Mr.  Halleck  at 
Monterey,  and  I  think  a  better  selection  could  not  have  been  made. 
I  think  he  is  a  gentleman  with  whom  you  will  be  much  satisfied  as 
manager  of  the  mine,  and  who  I  have  no  doubt  will  be  glad  to  avail 
himself  of  your  experience  in  whatever  may  be  new  to  him. 

I  am  very  happy  to  hear  that  Mr.  Walkinshaw  has  been  settled 
with,  and  that  all  annoyance  from  that  or  any  other  quarter  has 
ceased. 

1  shall  avoid  saying  anything  respecting  the  Berreyesa  affair  till  the 
letters  by  the  steamer  come  to  hand,  which  will  no  doubt  confirm  the 
arrangement  between  them  and  Mr.  La  Torre. 

I  am,  my  dear  sir, 

Yours  truly, 

A  FORBES. 
(Endorsed)  No.  15. 


407 
F.   No.  17— J.  A.  Monroe.     [  0.  H.   No.  15.  ] 


J.  A.  Forbes,  Esq.,  Santa  Clara, 
My  Dear  Sir  : 


Tepic,  10th  January,  1851, 


I  was  duly  favored  with  your  obliging  letjters  of  the  12th  and  29th 
of  Nov.,  in  which  you  mention  that  I  had  stated  some  disappointment 
by  your  not  writing,  and  allude  to  some  other  matters  I  have  no  rec- 
ollection of.  I  have  always  reckoned  upon  you  as  a  friend,  and  am 
well  convinced  that  you  have  every  disposition  to  promote  the  interests 
of  the  mining  negotiation  as  much  as  is  your  power,  which  William 
Barron  confirms  in  his  late  letters  to  the  house. 

We  have  nothing  to  fear  from  the  lawyer  Jones  should  he  come  here, 
but  I  understand  he  has  gone  to  the  Sandwich  Islands,  and  is  likely 
to  make  a  journey  to  the  other  world.  Mr.  Barron  has  caused  a  most 
minute  examination  to  be  made  in  the  archives  in  the  city  of  Mexico, 
the  result  of  which  has  been  that,  neither  Alvarado  nor  Micheltorena 
were  authorized  to  grant  titles  for  lands  in  California,  nor  does  there 
appear  to  have  been  any  approval  or  confirmation  of  such  grants  as 
they  took  upon  themselves  to  grant — so  that  the  title  of  the  Berreyesa's 
lxnd,  either  by  Alvarado  or  by  Micheltorena,  if  opposition  is  made,  is 
valueless. 

This  being  the  case,  few  of  the  California  titles  would  be  good  if 
determined  by  the  vigorous  application  of  the  Mexican  law.  Mr. 
Barron  has  procured  documents  to  confirm  this  view  of  the  case,  but 
we  have  resolved  not  to  make  use  of  such  documents  except  in  our 
own  defence,  as  we  do  not  wish  to  injure  any  one  ;  but  in  the  case  of 
the  Berreyesas  we  are  compelled  to  use  all  means  in  our  power  to 
counteract  their  proceedings  or  those  of  their  abettors  if  they  persist 
in  their  late  proceedings. 

If  it  was  not  that  I  am  an  interested  party  I  would  recommend 
to  them  to  secure  their  Rancho  by  silence,  for  I  am  well  assured  that 
.  by  adopting  hostile  measures  against  us  they  may  lose  it  altogether. 
The  Rothschilds  have  a  large  quantity  of  quicksilver  on  hand,  and  the 
miners  thought  that  by  competition  between  them  and  New  Almaden 
it  might  come  down  greatly  in  price,  and  kept  off  from  purchasing, 
but  an  agreement  has  been  come  to  between  both  parties,  by  which 
this  competition  is  done  away  with,  and  the  price  will  be  maintained 
at  a  fair  rate. 

In  consequence  however  of  the  expectation  of  the  miners  few 
sales  have  been  made,  and  little  of  the  proceeds  of  sales  realized, 
but  from  the  arrangement  alluded  to  it  is  hoped  that  the  sales  will 
soon  be  considerable.     You  will  find  by  B.  F.  &  Co.'s  letter  that 


408 

your  wishes  have  been  complied  with  in  debiting  you  with  the  $1700 
in  the  account  of  your  share  of  the  sales  of  quicksilver. 
With  best  respects  to  Mrs.  Forbes  and  your  family, 

I  am,  my  dear  sir,  Yours  very  truly, 

ALEX.  FORBES. 


(Addressed) 


James  A.  Forbes,  Esq., 
Santa  Clara, 

California. 


(Endorsed) 

Alex.  Forbes,  Jan.  10th,  1851. 
No.  17. 


F.  No.  27— J.  A.  Monroe.     [  0.  H.   No.  26.  ] 

Memorandum  of  documents  contained  in  this  box. 

Sixteen  letters  from  Alexander  Forbes  to  J.  A.  Forbes,  numbered 
1,  2,  3,  4,  5,  7,  8,  9,  10,  11,  13,  6,  14,  15,  17  and  one  marked  B. 

Three  letters  from  Barron,  Forbes  &  Co.  to  J.  A.  Forbes,  numbered 
12,  16,  and  marked  C. 

All  the  above  in  English. 

Three  copies  of  letters  from  J.  A.  Forbes,  marked  II.  Ill  and  IV, 
in  English. 

One  copy  of  a  memorandum  in  the  Spanish  language,  marked  I. 

One  letter  from  Barron,  Forbes  &  Co.,  J.  San  Francisco  March  3, 
1857. 

Jas.  Alex.  Forbes. 

Also  a  copy  of  petition  from  Alex.  Forbes,  accompanied  by  a  sketch 
of  pertenencias  of  which  the  possession  was  given  on  the  19th  of  Jan., 
1848,  by  Alcalde  of  San  Jose. 

(Endorsed) 

List  of  documents  contained  in  this  box. 


409 

DEPOSITION  OF  ANTONIO  SUftOL. 

United  States  District  Court,         ) 
Northern  District  of  California,  \ 

San  Francisco,  December  12th,  1857. 

On  this  day,  before  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States  for  the 
Northern  District  of  California,  &c,  &c,  came  Antonio  Sufiol,  a  wit- 
ness produced  on  behalf  of  the  United  States,  in  Case  No.  420,  being 
a  cross  appeal  from  the  Board  of  Commissioners  to  ascertain  and  set- 
tle the  Private  Land  Claims  in  the  State  of  California,  in  Case  No. 
366,  on  the  Docket  of  the  said  Board  of  Commissioners,  and  was  duly 
sworn  and  testified  as  follows — his  evidence  being  interpreted  by  Rich- 
ard Tobin,  a  sworn  interpreter. 

Present :  Ogden  Hoffman,  District  Judge. 

Question  by  Counsel  for  United  States. 

Question. — Have  you  been  examined  heretofore  in  this  cause  ? 
Answer. — I  have.     My  name  is  Antonio  Sunol ;    my  age  is  60 
years  ;  my  residence  is  San  Jose*. 

(Document  produced  by  S.  0.  Houghton  shown  to  witness.) 

Ques. — Is  this  the  same  paper  shown  on  your  previous  examination  ? 
Ans. — I  believe  it  is  ;  it  is  the  same. 
Ques. — Where  were  you  when  you  signed  it  ? 
Ans. — In  San  Jose\ 

Ques. — Who  else  were  there  at  the  time  ? 
Ans. — Antonio  Maria  Pico,  Noriega  and  Gutierrez. 
Ques. — Was  there  any  one  else  ? 

Ans. — Jose*  Fernandez  was  also  there  ;  I  think  that  was  all. 
Ques. — Are  you  certain  that  Gutierrez  and  Fernandez  were  both 
I  ore  ? 

Ans. — Yes.     Gutierrez  brought  the  papers,  and  Fernandez,  as  Sec- 
■ry  of  the  Ayuntamiento,  was  present  also. 
i  ;ues. — Where  did  Gutierrez  bring  the  papers  from  ? 
Ans. — From  the  Mission  of  Santa  Clara. 
Ques. — Who  had  sent  him  ? 
Ans. — Andres  Castillero. 
Ques. — Was  Castillero  not  present  ? 
Ans. — I  do  not  remember  that  he  was ;  I  think  not. 
34 


410 

Ques. — Was  Padre  Real  there  ? 

Ans. — I  am  positive  he  was  not  when  I  signed. 

Ques. — Were  these  papers  signed  on  the  same  day  the  possession 
was  given,  or  afterwards  ? 

Ans. — It  was  afterwards  ;  one  or  two  days. 

Ques. — In  whose  handwriting  is  the  document  ? 

Ans. — In  that  of  Gutierrez. 

Ques. — Did  you  see  Gutierrez  write  it  ? 

Ans. — No.  I  know  his  handwriting,  because  he  was  a  school  mas- 
ter at  my  house  for  some  time. 

Ques. — Was  it  customary  in  those  days  for  Alcaldes  or  other  offi- 
cers to  do  any  official  act  between  Christmas  and  New  Years  ? 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans. — It  was  customary  to  perform  official  acts  at  any  time. 

Ques.— Please  look  at  Exhibits"  X.  Y.,"  "  A.  B."<C.  D.,  "  M.  R." 
and  "  T.  R.,"  attached  to  deposition  of  Jose'  Fernandez,  and  say  whether 
they  are  in  the  handwriting  of  the  Gutierrez  you  speak  of. 

Ans.— I  think  that  "  T.  R."  and  "  X.  Y."  are  in  his  handwriting. 
As  to  the  rest,  I  can't  be  positive.  Gutierrez  was  a  man  who  drank  a 
good  deal,  and  wrote  differently  at  different  times. 

I  am  sure  that  the  document  of  possession  is  in  his  handwriting,  for 
I  signed  it  immediately  afterwards. 

Ques. — Compare  the  document  of  possession  with  these  exhibits,  and 
say  whether  there  is  any  resemblance  in  the  handwriting ;  and  if  so, 
what? 

Ans. — The  document  of  possession  seems  to  have  been  written  with 
a  heavier  hand.  I  see  no  similarity,  but  a  difference  between  them.  I 
have  already  said  that  Gutierrez  drank  a  great  deal,  and  wrote  differ- 
ently at  different  times. 

I  think  none  of  the  Exhibits  are  in  the  handwriting  of  Gutierrez. 
This  is  according  to  my  idea  of  the  matter. 

Ques. — Are  you  certain  that  the  document  of  possession  is  in  the 
handwriting  of  Gutierrez,  and  if  so,  why  ? 

Ans. — I  have  seen  it  very  often,  and  from  the  appearance  of  the 
writing,  I  am  certain  it  is  his  writing. 

Ques. — How  was  it  that  the  date  was  left  blank  ? 

Ans. — I  don't  know ;  it  may  have  been  some  mistake. 

Ques. — Did  you  read  the  paper  before  you  signed  it  ? 

Ans. — I  don't  remember  ;  I  may  or  may  not  have  read  it. 

Ques. — What  was  done  with  it  when  it  was  signed  ? 

Ans. — Gutierrez  took  it  with  him. 

Ques. — Why  was  it  not  handed  to  the  Secretary  ? 

Ans. — I  don't  know  why  ;  Gutierrez  came  with  the  Secretary. 


411 

Ques. — Did  Gutierrez  and  the  Secretary  go.  away  together  ? 
Ans. — I  don't  remember  well ;  I  suppose  they  did. 

Ques Look  at  the  two  petitions  signed  "  Castillero,"  and  say  i 

you  know  the  handwriting  of  them  ? 

(Papers  shown  to  witness.) 

Ans. — The  handwriting  is  that  of  Castillero ;  both  are  in  his  hand 
writing  ;  he  wrote  with  one  hand  as  well  as  the  other. 

(The  answer  to  question  No.  2,  in  the  former  deposition  is  read  fa 
him.) 

Ques. — How  does  it  happen  that  you  then  swore  these  petitions  wer 
in  handwriting  of  Gutierrez,  and  now  you  say  they  are  in  that  of  Cas 
tillero  ? 

Ans. — I  don't  know  ;  it  seemed  to  me  then,  I  suppose,  that  it  wa 
Gutierrez'  handwriting,  and  now  it  seems  to  me  to  be  that  of  Castillero 

Ques. — Might  you  not  make  the  same  mistake  as  to  the  signature 
that  you  have  as  to  the  body  of  the  writing  ? 

Ans. — I  think  not. 

Ques. — Why  not  ? 

Ans. — Because  one  is  less  liable  to  be  mistaken  than  the  other ;  m; 
eye-sight  is  not  as  good  now  as  it  was  some  years  ago. 

Ques. — How  can  he  be  so  certain  as  to  the  handwriting  of  Gutierre 
in  the  act  of  possession,  and  yet  be  uncertain  as  to  same  handwriting  i 
the  petitions. 

Ans. — At  that  time  I  knew  his  handwriting  well ;  he  was  the  ma: 
who  did  the  writing  for  Castillero ;  and  because  Gutierrez  said  at  th 
time  that  he  had  written  it. 

Ques. — Did  not  Gutierrez  bring  the  two  petitions  at  the  same  tim 
with  the  act  of  possession  ? 

Ans. — No.     The  petitions  had  previously  been  made. 

Ques. — Where  were  they  ? 

Ans. — I  don't  know. 

Ques. — Were  they  not  in  the  Alcalde's  office  ? 

Ans. — They  probably  were  ;  I  don't  know. 

Ques. — By  whom  was  the  act  of  possession  composed  ? 

Ans. — It  was  dictated  by  Castillero. 

Ques. — How  do  you  know  this  ? 

Ans. — Because  there  was  a  draft  of  it  made  at  the  mine. . 

Ques. — Who  made  the  draft  ? 

Ans. — Castillero  dictated  it. 

Ques. — Who  was  present  when  it  was  dictated. 

Ans. — Antonio  M.  Pico,  Noriega,  myself,  Fernandez  and  Padr 


412 

Real,  and  Castillero.  There  were  also  some  workmen  there,  and  no 
one  else. 

Ques. — Was  not  Berreyesa  or  Justo  Larios  there  ? 

Ans. — After  we  had  commenced  making  the  draft  Sergeant  Ber- 
reyesa came  up. 

Ques. — Why  was  not  the  Secretary  employed  to  write  the  draft  in- 
stead of  Gutierrez  ? 

Ans. — I  don't  know.  The  Secretary  was  there,  and  he  was  paid 
for  it. 

Ques. — Did  you  see  him  paid  ? 

Ans. — Yes,  sir ;  in  my  house  when  the  papers  were  brought  there 
to  be  signed. 

Ques. — What  else  did  you  do  at  the  mine  ? 

Ans. — Nothing ;  possession  was  given ;  we  were  there  looking 
around,  and  then  we  returned. 

Ques. — What  surveyor  had  you  there  ? 

Ans. — There  was  none  ;  we  were  all  surveyors. 

Ques. — What  measurements  were  made  ? 

Ans. — None  ;  we  only  prepared  the  papers,  and  gave  possession, 
subject  to  the  approval  of  the  Government. 

Ques. — What  Government  ? 

Ans. — The  National  Government  of  Mexico. 

Ques. — Was  this  put  in  the  draft  ? 

Ans. — Yes,  sir. 

Ques. — Read  it  and  see  if  you  can  find  it  ? 

Ans. — What  I  say  is  the  same  as  the  paper  says,  "  The  general 
government  of  mining,"  the  ordenanzas  of  mining,  means  the  same  thing 
as  I  meant  by  my  first  answer. 

Ques. — Were  any  measurements  made  at  the  mine  ? 

Ans. — No,  sir. 

Ques. — Were  there  any  stakes  driven  ;  if  so.  by  whom  ? 

Ans. — I  don't  remember  that  there  were  any  stakes  driven. 

Ques. — Did  you  go  into  the  mine,  and  what  did  you  do  there  ? 

Ans. — We  sat  down,  and  were  looking  around. 

Ques. — What  did  Castillero  do  down  there  ? 

Ans. — Nothing  ;  he  was  looking  around  as  we  were. 

Ques. — In  what  manner  did  the  Alcalde  give  possession  ? 

Ans. — He  said  he  gave  possession  in  the  name  of  the  Nation  of  the 
number  of  varas  expressed  in  the  draft. 

Ques. — In  what  manner  did  they  designate  the  land  ? 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans. — They  just  walked  around ;  I  do  not  mean  that  they  went 
round  the  limits  ;  we  walked  about. 


413 

Ques. — How  long  have  you  resided  in  California  ? 

Ans. — 40  or  41  years  ;  all  the  time  at  the  Pueblo  of  San  Jose*. 

Ques. — When  did  you  first  hear  of  this  mine  ? 

Ans. — In  the  year  1824. 

Ques. — What  is  the  tradition  of  the  country  as  to  its  first  discovery  ? 

(Objected  to  as  new  matter,  not  admissible  on  cross-examination.) 

Ans. — Myself  and  Chaboya  put  a  mill  there  on  the  stream,  and 
tried  to  get  silver  out  of  it ;  this  was  in  the  year  1824. 

Ques. — Was  it  not  generally  known  ever  since  1824  that  there  was 
a  mine  there  ? 

Ans. — It  was  generally  known,  but  it  was  not  known  of  what  kind  it 
was. 

(Foregoing  question  and  answer  objected  to.) 

Ques. — Was  it  known  that  the  Indians  resorted  to  it  ? 

(Objected  to.) 

» 

Ans. — The  Indians  went  there  to  get  paint ;  they  had  an  idea  that 
the  place  was  sacred.  They  used  to  drop  feathers  there  or  other  lit- 
tle offerings,  and  they  used  to  say  the  devil  was  there. 

Ques. — Had  the  place  any  name  ? 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans.— It  was  called  "  Pulli  "  "  Pooyi." 

Ques. — When  did  you  first  know  there  was  quicksilver  there  ? 

Ans. — The  first  time  was  when  we  were  examining  together,  Castil- 
lero  and  myself;  we  put  some  of  the  ore  on  a  hot  brick,  and  drops  of 
the  quicksilver  ran  out.     This  was  done  at  the  Mission  of  Santa  Clara. 

Ques. — Who  was  present  at  this  experiment  ? 

Ans. — Castillero  and  I  were  there  alone.  Padre  Real  was  attend- 
ing to  other  matters.  After  the  experiment  was  made,  he  and  others 
saw  the  result.     It  was  generally  known  and  spoken  of  after  that. 

Ques. — Did  you  hear  at  that  time  of  any  partnership  between  Cas- 
tillero, Padre  Real  and  others,  to  work  the  mine  ? 

Ans. — I  did. 

Ques. — Was  it  formed  before  or  after  the  possession  was  given  ? 

Ans. — I  don't  know  whether  it  was  before  or  after ;  I  think  the  com 
pany  was  not  formed  at  that  time  ? 

(Foregoing  question  and  answer  objected  to.) 


414 

Ques. — Did  you  hear  Castro  or  Robles  speak  of  having  any  interest 
in  the  mine  before  the  possession  was  given  ? 

Ans. — I  don't  remember  whether  I  heard  them  speak  of  it  before 
possession  was  given ;  afterwards  I  did. 

Ques. — Have  you  said  that  Padre  Real  was  present  when  possession 
was  given  ? 

Ans. — Yes,  sir. 

Ques. — Where  was  Gen.  Castro  at  the  time  of  the  possession  ? 

Ans. — I  don't  know.  He  was  at  the  Mission  when  we  made  the 
assay,  and  found  the  quicksilver. 

Ques. — Was  he  living  at  the  Mission  ? 

Ans. — He  was  with  the  troops  ;  he  came  up  with  the  troops  some 
fifteen  or  twenty  days  before  we  made  the  assay. 

Ques. — How  long  was  it  after  the  assay  before  the  partnership  was 
spoken  of  ? 

Ans. — I  don't  remember  how  long ;  I  think  it  was  a  short  time  af- 
terwards. 

Ques. — Was  Gen.  Castro  at  the  Mission  when  you  went  to  give  pos- 
session ? 

Ans. — I  think  he  was  not. 

Ques. — About  how  long  after  possession  was  given,  was  it  that  Cas- 
tro came  to  the  Mission  ? 

(Objected  to,  as  assuming  a  fact  not  in  proof.) 

Ans. — I  think  it  was  a  short  time. 

Ques. — How  long  did  the  troops  remain  at  the  Mission  ? 

Ans. — I  think  fifteen  or  twenty  days ;  when  they  marched  to  Mon- 
terey. 

Ques. — Was  it  at  the  end  of  1845  or  beginning  of  1846,  that  you 
made  the  assay  ? 

Ans. — It  was  about  the  end  of  1845. 

Ques. — Can  you  recollect  any  other  circumstance  by  which  you  can 
fix  the  date  of  the  assay  ? 

Ans. — I  think  it  was  at  the  end  of  November  or  beginning  of  De- 
cember. 

Ques. — -Have  you  any  means  of  remembering  the  day  when  posses- 
sion was  given  ? 

Ans. — Nothing  particular. 

Ques. — Was  it  before  or  after  the  rains  ? 

Ans  — I  think  it  had  rained  a  litle. 

Ques. — At  what  time  do  the  rains  usually  set  in  ? 

Ans. — In  October,  November  and  December. 

Ques. — Does  it  usually  rain  in  December  ? 

Ans. — As  a  general  thing,  December  is  a  rainy  month  ? 


415 

Ques. — What  sort  of  weather  was  it  when  you  went  to  the  mine  ; 
was  it  muddy  and  soft,  or  hard  and  dry  ;  was  it  hot  or  cold  ? 

Ans. — It  was  a  little  soft  and  moist.  The  weather  was  temperate, 
neither  hot  nor  cold.     We  all  went  on  horseback. 

Ans. — Don't  you  remember  that  Gutierrez  went  on  foot  ? 

Ans. — He  went  on  horseback  and  returned  on  foot. 

Ques. — Had  you  had  any  thing  to  do  just  before  you  went  to  give 
possession  ? 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans. — No. 

Ques. — Had  you  seen  much  of  Castillero  before  that  time  ? 

Ans. — Yes,  sir. 

Ques. — What  had  you  to  do  with  him  ? 

Ans. — Nothing,  except  that  we  were  acquaintances. 

Ques. — Who  told  Castillero  that  there  was  a  mine  there  ? 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans. — A  person  called  "  El  Chato  Robles." 

Ques. — Which  Robles  was  it  ? 

Ans. — Teodoro  Robles,  one  of  those  who  was  in  the  partnership. 

Ques. — How  long  was  this  before  possession  was  given  ? 

Ans. — I  don't  know  ;  I  can't  say. 

Ques. — What  sort  of  a  mine  did  he  tell  him  it  was  ? 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans. — A  silver  mine. 

Ques. — Did  Castillero  stay  at  your  house  when  he  was  in  the 
country  ? 

Ans. — He  sometimes  came  to  my  house. 

Ques. — Did  you  have  much  conversation  with  him  about  the  mine 
before  you  gave  possession  ? 

Ans. — I  may  have  had  ;  I  don't  remember.  I  told  him  about  my 
having  worked  the  mine  in  1824. 

(Question  and  answer  objected  to.) 

Ques. — Did  Castillero  show  you  any  stones  from  the  mine  ? 
Ans. — He  did. 

Ques. — What  did  he  say  about  them  ? 

Ans. — Various  things  ;  sometimes  he  said  it  was  gold,  sometimes 
silver ;  finally  he  ascertained  it  was  quicksilver. 


416 

Ques. — Do  you  remember  any  experiments  made  with  a  gun-barrel  ? 

Ans. — I  don't  know  of  any  with  a  gun-barrel ;  there  were  some 
with  retorts  ;  they  were  the  old  fashioned  stills  to  make  liquor. 

Ques. — Was  it  before  or  after  possession  was  given  that  Gen.  Cas- 
tro came  to  the  Mission  with  the  troops  ? 

Ans. — I  think  it  was  before,  but  I  do  not  remember. 

Ques. — How  long  was  it  after  Castillero  showed  you  the  stones  that 
it  was  discovered  to  be  quicksilver  ? 

Ans. — He  was  constantly  in  the  habit  of  showing  me  stones  every 
Sunday  I  went  to  the  Mission.     I  can't  remember. 

Ques. — Was  any  experiment  made  with  stones  or  earth  at  the  mine 
at  the  time  of  the  possession  ;  any  washing  with  a  plate  ? 

Ans. — I  do  not  remember  that  it  was  done  at  the  mine ;  it  was  done 
at  the  Mission  after  coming  from  the  mine. 

Ques. — What  did  you  do  it  for  ? 

Ans. — To  ascertain  for  certain  what  it  was. 

Ques. — What  did  you  suppose  it  to  be  ? 

Ans. — We  made  that  assay  to  see  if  it  was  quicksilver.  There  had 
been  various  opinions  ;  some  thought  it  gold  ;  some  silver. 

Ques. — What  did  you  find  it  to  be  ? 

Ans. — The  washing  was  before  we  went  to  the  mine. 

Ques. — Did  you  not  say  it  was  after  your  return  from  the  mine  ? 

Ans. — No.     All  the  assays  were  before  we  went  to  the  mine. 

Ques. — At  the  time  of  giving  possession,  how  much  quicksilver  had 
*  you  ever  seen  from  that  mine  ? 

Ans. — I  never  saw  but  one  small  drop. 

Ques. — How  long  after,  then,  was  this  abundant  extraction  by  means 
of  the  still  ? 

Ans. — It  must  have  been  some  days  after  ;  I  cannot  recollect ;  I  am 
pretty  certain  that  it  was  after  possession  was  given. 

Ques. — How  long  before  you  gave  possession  was  it  that  you  saw 
the  little  drops  of  quicksilver  ? 

Ans. — I  cannot  tell ;  it  must  have  been  a  few  days  before. 

Ques. — Have  you  not  said  that  up  to  the  time  of  going  to  the 
mine,  you  had  only  seen  one  little  drop  ?  and  do  you  repeat  that  an- 
swer now  ? 

Ans. — I  think  I  have  never  seen  but  that  one  drop. 

Ques. — How  then  did  it  happen  that  the  words,  stating  that  "  much 
silver  had  been  produced  at  the  mine,  according  to  the  samples  at  the 
Juzgado,"  were  inserted  in  the  act  of  possession  ? 

Ans. — Because  they  had  taken  out  several  stones,  and  had  found 
them  to  contain  a  large  proportion  of  quicksilver.  This  paper  does 
not  state  that  they  had  obtained  liquid  silver. 

Ques. — Look  at  the  paper  where  it  states  that  the  mine  had  pro- 
duced an  abundance  of  liquid  quicksilver,  and  now  say  how  those  words 
came  to  be  inserted  when  you  had  only  seen  a  drop  ? 


417 

Ans. — I  cannot  remember  whether  it  was  before  the  possession  or 
after,  that  this  abundant  yield  took  place.  I  have  already  said  that  I 
could  not  remember. 

Ques. — Did  you  know  Alexander  Forbes  in  this  country  ? 

Ans. — I  did. 

Ques. — Did  he  not  stay  at  your  house. 

Ans. — Not  at  my  house.  He  staid  at  the  mission ;  don't  know 
whether  he  staid  at  the  house  of  James  Forbes  or  not. 

Ques. — Did  not  Alexander  Forbes  leave  with  you  some  papers  con- 
cerning the  mine  ? 

Ans. — Ho  left  some  concerning  a  sale,  but  not  concerning  the  mine. 

Ques. — Did  not  the  sale  relate  to  the  mine  ? 

Ans. — It  did. 

Ques. — What  became  of  those  papers  ? 

Ans. — Senor  Laurencel  can  answer  that. 

Ques. — What  did  he  tell  you  about  them  ? 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans. — He  did  not  tell  me,  but  as  they  were  open  I  read  them 
myself. 

Ques. — What  else  was  there  amongst  the  papers  but  the  sale  ? 

Ans. — I  don't  recollect. 

Ques. — What  became  of  the  papers  ? 

Ans. — I  gave  them  to  Mr.  Alexander  Forbes,  to  whom  they  be- 
longed. 

Ques. — Who  was  the  vendor  in  this  act  of  sale  ? 

Ans. — It  was  an  act  of  sale  by  Padre  Real  to  Alexander  Forbes. 

Ques. — Was  this  paper  the  act  of  Padre  Real  in  his  own  right  or 
that  of  Castillero  through  Real  as  his  attorney  ? 

Ans. — I  do  not  remember. 

Ques. — Did  you  make  a  copy  of  the  papers  left  with  you  by  Mr. 
Alexander  Forbes  ? 

Ans.— I  did. 

Quss. — Did  Mr.  Alexander  Forbes  know  it,  or  was  it  done  with  his 
consent  ? 

Ans. — No,  he  knew  nothing  of  it.  It  was  done  for  the  purpose  of 
employing  a  boy,  to  practice  him  in  writing. 

Ques. — Did  you  keep  the  copy  some  time  ? 

Ans. — It  remained  in  my  house  some  days. 

Ques. — Did  it  not  remain  some  years  ? 

Ans. — No,  sir. 

Ques. — What  became  of  it  ? 

Ans. — I  showed  it  to  Mr.  Laurencel,  and  he  carried  it  off. 

Ques. — When  did  Mr.  Laurencel  come  to  this  country  ? 


418 

Ans.— In  1850  or  1851. 

Ques. — When  did  Alexander  Forbes  leave  the  papers  with  you  ? 

Ans.— In  1846  or  1847. 

Ques. — Did  you  not  then  retain  it  several  years  ? 

Ans. — It  remained  among  my  papers :  I  thought  it  of  no  value. 
One  day  he  accidentally  told  Mr.  Laurencel  he  had  such  a  paper,  and 
showed  it  to  him.  He  carried  it  away  without  my  consent,  and  has 
not  returned  it  to  me. 

Ques. — Why  did  you  say  you  kept  it  only  a  few  days  ? 

Ans. — I  meant  the  original  and  not  the  copy. 

Ques. — Was  you  in  the  Pueblo  when  the  Americans  took  the  place  ? 

Ans. — I  have  been  there  all  the  time  up  to  the  present. 

Ques. — How  long  after  the  hoisting  of  the  American  flag  at  Mon- 
terey was  the  Pueblo  taken  ? 

Ans. — I  don't  remember. 

Ques. — Was  it  about  the  time  they  took  Monterey  ? 

Ans. — Those  were  matters  which  did  not  interest  me  much,  I  don't 
remember. 

Ques. — Was  not  Mr.  Weber  the  commander  of  the  American  forces 
who  took  the  place  ? 

Ans. — He  was  not  commander  of  any  thing.  He  was  a  leader  of 
some  people.  There  was  nothing  for  them  to  take.  They  came  in 
whenever  they  chose. 

Ques. — Did  not  the  Americans  fortify  a  house,  the  Juzgado  ? 

Ans. — With  stockades.  But  I  don't  remember  what  year  it  was. 
I  think  it  was  1846.  It  was  then  that  the  Americans  took  the  coun- 
try finally,  and  have  continued  to  occupy  it  ever  since. 

Ques. — How  long  did  the  Americans  occupy  the  Juzgado  as  a  fort  ? 

Ans. — A  month  or  two ;  certainly  one  month. 

Ques. — Were  not  the  Alcalde's  office  and  papers  in  the  same 
building  ? 

(Cross-examination  waived  by  claimant's  counsel.) 

(The  signature  the  deposition  waived  by  consent  of  both  counsel.) 


DEPOSITION  OF  JOSE  NORIEGA. 

United  States  District  Court,      ) 
Northern  District  of  California.  ) 

San  Francisco,  December  12th  1857. 
On  this  day,  before  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States  for  the 
Northern  District  of  California,  came  Jose*  Noriega,  a  witness  produced 


419 

on  behalf  of  the  United  States,  in  case  420,  being  a  cross  appeal  from 
the  Board  of  Commissioners  to  ascertain  and  settle  the  Private  Land 
Claims  in  the  State  of  California,  in  Case  No.  366  on  the  Docket  of 
the  said  Board  of  Commissioners,  and  was  duly  sworn  and  testified  as 
follows — his  evidence  being  interpreted  by  E.  F.  Dunn,  a  sworn  inter- 
preter : 

Present  : — Ogden  Hoffman,  U.  S.  District  Judge. 

Questions  by  Counsel  for  the  U.  S. 

What  is  your  name,  age  and  residence  ? 

Ans. — Jose'  Noriega  ;  my  age  37  ;  I  reside  in  the  Pueblo  of  San 
Jose,  Santa  Clara  county. 

Ques. — Have  you  been  examined  before  in  this  case  ? 

Ans. — Yes  ;  in  the  Commission. 

Ques. — Do  you  remember  a  paper  shown  to  you  with  Antonio  Maria 
Pico  as  Alcalde  and  your"  own  as  witness  ? 

Ans. — I  do. 

Ques. — Do  you  know  your  own  signature  when  you  see  it  ? 

Ans. — Yes,  sir ;  I  ought  to  know  it. 

Ques. — Do  you  know  the  difference  between  your  signature  when 
written  by  others  and  when  written  by  yourself  ? 

Ans. — If  it  was  very  well  done  I  might  not  know  it. 

Ques. — Has  your  signature  ever  been  witten  by  others  so  that  you 
would  not  know  it  from  your  own  ? 

Ans. — I  do  not  know  whether  any  one  else  has  written  it  or  not. 

(Exhibit  marked  "  Posesion  de  lamina,"  produced  by  S.  0.  Hough- 
ton, shown  to  witness.) 

Ques. — Look  at  this  document,  and  at  the  last  instrument  purporting 
to  be  signed  by  Antonio  M.  Pico,  Antonio  Sunol  and  Jose'  Noriega, 
and  say  whether  it  is  the  same  paper  shown  you  at  a  former  examina- 
tion. 

Ans. — I  will  look  to  see  my  signature.  I  can't  say  if  it  is  the  same 
paper  or  not.  This  is  my  signature.  I  believe  this  to  be  the  same 
paper. 

Ques. — Do  you  know  anything  about  the  possession  of  which  that 
paper  speaks  ? 

Ans. — I  signed  that  paper,  and  I  believe  it  to  be  an  Act  of  Pos- 
session. 

Ques. — Do  you  know  anything  of  the  possession  given  by  Antonio 
M.  Pico,  of  which  that  paper  speaks  ? 

Ans. — I  was  present  at  the  mouth  of  the  mine  when  possession  was 
given. 


420 

Ques. — Was  it  customary  for  the  Alcalde  or  other  officer  of  Gov- 
ernment to  do  any  official  act  between  Christmas  and  New  Years  ? 

(Objected,  as  being  entirely  irrelevant.     Objection  noted.) 

Ans. — I  do  not  remember.  I  do  not  know  of  such  a  custom.  I 
don't  know  what  they  were  in  the  habit  of  doing  between  those  days. 

Ques. — What  time  of  the  year  was  it  when  you  went  to  the  mine 
io  give  the  possession  spoken  of  ? 

(Objected  to  as  irrelevant.) 

Ans. — I  do  not  know  ;  I  think  it  was  at  the  end  of  summer. 

Ques. — Was  it  wet  weather  or  dry  ? 

Ans. — There  was  sunshine.  I  think  it  was  the  beginning  of  winter 
or  end  of  summer. 

Ques. — Had  there  been  rain  that  year  ? 

Ans. — The  rains  had  not  commenced,  but  I  know  it  was  near  the 
beginning  of  winter. 

Ques. — Who  went  with  you  to  the  mine  ? 

Ans. — Antonio  M.  Pico,  Antonio  Sunol,  Padre  Real,  Jose*  Fernan- 
dez and  some  others  whom  I  don't  remember. 

Ques. — What  surveyor  went  with  you  ? 

Ans. — None. 

Ques. — What  instruments  had  you  with  you  ? 

Ans. — I  think  we  had  none. 

Ques. — What  measurements  were  made  ? 

Ans. — None  were  made. 

(All  the  foregoing  questions  as  to  what  was  done  objected  to,  the 
record  being  best  evidence.) 

Ques — Were  any  lands  laid  off  by  driving  stakes  ? 

Ans. — The  Judge  commanded  them  to  take  a  certain  number  of 
varas,  but  they  drove  no  stakes. 

Ques. — How  many  varas  ? 

Ans. — I  do  not  remember  well ;  I  heard  thousands  of  varas  spoken 
of.     I  don't  know  whether  it  was  3,000  or  1,000. 

Ques. — Did  you  see  any  examination  made,  and  was  anything  done 
in  the  cave  ;  and  if  so,  what  ? 

Ans. — There  was  a  well  ("poso")  in  front  of  the  cave  ;  I  don't 
know  how  deep  the  well  was.  The  cave  was  natural.  Serior  Castille- 
ro  had  a  plate  there  ;  he  had  earth  in  it  moistened  with  water  to  see 
what  he  could  find. 


421 

Ques. — Did  you  know  at  the  time  you  went  there  what  kind  of 
metal  was  in  the  mine  ? 

Ans. — Silver  and  gold. 

Ques. — At  that  time  was  the  mine  known  or  thought  to  contain  any 
other  metals  than  silver  and  gold  ? 

Ans. — I  believe  not ;  I  am  not  sure.  I  think  it  was  only  supposed 
to  contain  silver  and  gold. 

Ques. — How  long  after  this  was  it  before  you  knew  there  was  quick- 
silver in  the  mine  ? 

Ans. — I  do  not  remember.  I  know  it  was  not  a  great  while.  There 
was  an  assay  in  Santa  Clara  of  various  things,  and  quicksilver  was  dis- 
covered. 

Ques. — Who  made  those  assays  ? 

Ans. — No  one  but  Andres  Castillero  made  assays  that  I  know  of. 

Ques. — When  Castillero  was  washing  this  earth,  did  he  find  any- 
thing ? 

Ans. — Nothing  but  earth  very  much  colored — red.    , 

Ques. — Were  any  of  the  neighbors  present  there  ?  Justo  Larios, 
Berreyesa,  Cook,  &c. 

Ans. — I  do  not  remember  having  seen  any. 

Ques. — Did  you  sign  any  paper  at  the  mine  ? 

Ans. — No,  sir,  I  did  not. 

Ques. — How  long  after  you  were  at  the  mine  was  it  before  you 
signed  any  paper  relating  to  the  possession  ? 

Ans. — Some  days  had  passed ;  I  don't  remember  how  many.  I 
signed  it  at  the  house  of  Antonio  Suiiol. 

Ques. — What  kind  of  paper  was  it  ? 

Ans. — I  don't  remember  ;  it  was  white  paper,  that's  all  I  know ;  it 
was  12  or  fourteen  years  ago. 

Ques. — Name  all  the  persons  you  can  remember  who  were  then  pre- 
sent when  you  signed  that  paper. 

Ans. — Don  Antonio  Maria  Pico,  Antonio  Sunol,  Jose*  Fernandez, 
and  one  Guti:rrez,  whose  first  name  I  don't  remember. 

Ques.^ — Were  there  any  others  ? 

Ans. — Padre  Real ;  I  don't  remember  any  others. 

Ques. — Were  you  taken  prisoner  during  the  war  with  the  Ameri- 
cans, and  where  ? 

Ans. — At  Sacramento  (  on  the  9th  or  11th  of  June,  1846. 

Ques. — Do  you  remember  how  long  they  kept  you,  and  when  you 
got  home  ? 

Ans. — I  got  home  about  the  18th  of  August. 

Ques, — Is  your  recollection  clear  on  the  subject ;  and  if  so,  from 
what  circumstance  ? 

Ans. — I  remember  it  distinctly  ;  it  was  a  few  days  after  the  feast  of 
Santa  Clara. 


422 

Ques. — On  what  day  is  that  feast  celebrated  ? 

Ans. — I  don't  know  whether  it  was  the  12th  or  16th. 

Ques. — Where  were  the  Americans  at  that  time  ?  If  they  were  in 
San  Jose  what  were  they  doing  ? 

Ans. — They  had  taken  San  Jose* ;  they  were  passing  around  through 
the  city. 

Ques. — Where  had  they  their  cuartel  ? 

Ans. — It  was  in  a  place  called  La  Gruardia. 

Ques. — Was  that  the  same  place  as  the  Juzgado  ? 

Ans. — In  the  same  house  as  the  cuartel  was  the  Juzgado. 

Ques. — Was  the  cuartel  and  Juzgado  fortified  ;  and  in  what  man- 
ner ? 

Ans. — There  was  a  ditch  and  stockade. 

Ques. — Was  this  Juzgado  the  place  where  the  archives  of  the  Al- 
calde were  kept  ? 

Ans. — It  was. 

Ques. — Did  you  learn  how  long  the  Americans  had  been  there^? 

Ans. — I  dbn't  know  on  what  day  they  had  come. 

Ques. — Did  any  one  tell  you  at  that  time  how  long  they  had  been 
there  ? 

Ans. — I  heard  they  had  been  there  some  days. 

(The  last  question  and  answer  objected  to.) 

I  don't  know  how  long  they  had  been  there. 

Ques. — Did  you  see  any  one  acting  as  Alcalde  at  that  time  ? 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans. — John  Burton  was  Alcalde. 

Ques. — Did  you  find  any  native  Californians  acting  as  officers  when 
you  got  back  ? 

Ans. — I  found  at  first  John  Burton,  Alcalde,  and  after  that  I — do 
not  know  for  what  reason — they  put  in  Pedro  Chaboya. 

Ques. — Please  to  state  all  that  was  said  and  done  at  the  mouth  of 
the  mine  on  the  occasion  of  giving  the  possession  referred  to. 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans.  We  arrived  there  ;  we  remained  a  little  while  ;  I  was  laying 
under  a  tree  near  the  mouth  of  the  mine  ;  they  were  speaking  about 
the  manner  of  taking  the  possession.  They  arranged  that  the  pos- 
session should  be  taken  of  a  certain  number  of  thousand  varas  in  each 
direction  fromthe  mouth  of  the  mine.  The  Alcalde  said — you  take  this 
number  of  varas  in  each  direction.  After  that  we  mounted  our  horses 
and  went  home. 


423 

Ques. — Who  assisted  Castillero  in  the  examination  of  the  cave  and 
in  washing  the  earth  ? 

Ans. — Castillero  did  it  alone  in  a  plate. 

Ques. — Did  you  see  any  liquid  quicksilver  at  the  mine,  at  that 
time  ? 

Ans. — I  did  not  see  any. 

Ques. — Had  you  seen  any  before  that  time  ? 

Ans. — I  had  never  seen  any,  and  did  not  know  it  in  California. 

Ques. — Have  you  repeated  every  formality  and  everything  that 
was  done. 

Ans. — There  is  not  much  to  repeat ;  I  have  told  all  they  did. 

(No  examination  on  part  of  Claimant's  Counsel.) 

(Signature  of  deposition  by  witness  waived ;  also  the  reading  of  it 
to  him.) 

Taken  in  open  Court,  this  12th  December,  185T,  before  me, 

OGDEN  HOFFMAN, 

Judge. 


ORDER  TO  MAKE  COPIES. 

At  a  stated  term  of  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States  of  Amer- 
ica, for  the  Northern  District  of  California,  held  at  the  court  house  in 
the  city  of  San  Francisco,  on  Tuesday  the  first  day  of  December,  in 
the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  fifty- seven. 

Present — The  Honorable  Ogden  Hoffman,  District  Judge. 

Andres  Castillero, 

V8. 

The  United  States, 

On  motion  of  the  Dist.  Atty.  and  the  counsel  for  claimants  consent- 
ing thereto,  ordered  that  the  clerk  of  this  court  make  copies  of  the 
original  documents  filed  in  this  cause,  on  Saturday  last,  and  that  he 
furnish  a  copy  of  the  same  to  the  counsel  of  each  of  the  parties  in  this 
cause. 

OGDEN  HOFFMAN, 

Dist.  Judge. 
Filed  Dec.  1st,  1857. 

JOHN  A.  MONROE,  Clerk. 
By  J.  Edgar  Grymes,  Deputy  Clerk. 


424 
DEPOSITION  OF  CAPT.  JOHN  PATY. 

UNITED   STATES    DISTRICT   COURT,  NORTHERN  DIST- 
RICT OF  CALIFORNIA. 


The  United  States  ) 

vs.  > 

Andres  Castillero.  ) 

San  Francisco,  December  15th,  1857. 


On  this  day  before  J.  Edgar  Grvmes,  Special  Commissioner  and 
Referee  appointed  by  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States  for  the 
Northern  District  of  California,  duly  authorized  to  administer  oaths, 
&c,  &c,  came  Capt.  John  Paty,  a  witness  produced  on  behalf  of 
the  United  States,  in  Case  No.  420,  being  an  appeal  from  the  Board 
of  Commissioners  to  ascertain  and  settle  the  Private  Land  Claims  in 
the  State  of  California,  in  Case  No.  366  on  the  Docket  of  the  said 
Board  of  Commissioners,  and  was  duly  sworn  and  testified  as  follows  : 

Present:  Frederick  Billings,  Esq.,  for  Claimant,  and  E.  W.  F. 
Sloan,  for  the  United  States. 

Questions  by  E.  W.  F.  Sloan,  Esq. 

Question  1. — What  is  your  name,  age,  and  place  of  residence  ? 

Answer  1. — My  name  is  John  Paty,  50  years  old,  and  I  reside  in 
Honolulu,  Sandwich  Islands.     I  am  a  master  mariner. 

Ques.  2. — Where  were  you  during  the  year  1846  ? 

Ans.  2. — I  was  on  this  coast  most  of  the  year.  I  made  a  voyage 
to  Mexico  during  the  same  year  from  California,  on  board  the  bark 
Don  Quixote,  of  which  I  was  master. 

Ques.  8. — From  what  point  in  California,  to  what  point  in  Mexico, 
did  you  make  that  voyage  ? 

Ans.  8. — From  Monterey  to  Acapulco. 

Ques.  4. — At  what  time  did  you  sail  and  at  what  time  did  you  ar- 
rive in  Acapulco  ? 

Ant.  4. — I  sailed  on  the  3d  of  April,  1846,  from  Monterey,  and 
arrived  at  Acapulco  on  the  21st  of  the  same  month. 

Ques.  5. — What  was  the  object  of  that  voyage  ? 

Ans.  5, — It  was  to  take  a  passenger  and  his  servant  to  Acapulco. 

Ques.  6. — Who  was  that  passenger  ? 

Au3.  6. — Andres  Castillero.  I  understood  that  he  was  a  Mexican 
officer. 

Ques.  7. — Did  you  land  him  at  Acapulco  ? 


425 

Ans.  7.— I  did. 

Ques.  8. — What  became  of  him  then  ? 

Ans.  8.— I  do  not  know  ;  but  I  understood  he  went  to  Mexico. 

Ques.  9. — Did  you  keep  a  log  of  the  voyage  ? 

Ans.  9. — I  did.  It  was  burnt  in  this  city,  in  the  big  fire  of  May, 
1851. 

Ques.  10. — Look  at  document  marked  "  J.  P.  No.  1,"  now  at- 
tached to  this  deposition,  and  state  what  it  is,  and  by  whom  written  ? 

Ans.  10. — This  is  extracts  from  the  journal  kept  on  board  of  the 
Don  Quixote  and  written  by  myself.  This  journal  was  my  wife's 
private  journal,  and  from  that  journal  and  from  my  private  papers  I 
made  these  extracts. 

Ques.  11. — Are  you  able  to  state  that  this  is  a  correct  memoran- 
dum? 

Auns.  11. — Yes,  sir. 

(The  document "  J.  P.  No.  1,"  is  objected  to  by  claimant's  counsel.) 

Ques  12. — Look  at  document  marked  "  J.  P.  No.  2."  now  attached 
to  this  deposition  and  state  what  it  is  and  by  whom  written. 

Ans.  12. — It  is  a  copy  of  a  letter  written  by  myself,  addressed  to 
T.  0.  Larkin.     It  was  written  in  Monterey,  dated  "  April  2d,  1846." 

Ques.  13. — Look  at  document  marked"  J.  P.  No.  3,"  now  attached 
to  your  deposition  and  state  what  it  is,  whether  it  came  into  your  pos- 
session, and  when. 

Ans.  13. — This  is  a  receipt  from  the  Post  Office  in  Acapulco,  for 
letters  mailed  there  by  myself  on  the  22d  of  April,  1846.  Said  let- 
ters were  taken  down  by  me  in  the  Don  Quixote  from  Monterey. 

Ques.  14. — How  long  had  you  been  in  Monterey  prior  to  setting 
out  on  that  voyage  ? 

Ans.  14. — I  do  not  know  for  certain,  but  think  about  two  weeks. 

Ques.  15. — Who  chartered  the  vessel  for  that  voyage  ? 

Ans.  15. — It  was  chartered  by  the  government.  Thos.  0.  Larkin 
was  my' agent. 

Ques.  16. — Was  there  any  other  Port  of  Entry  except  Monterey, 
at  which  a  veasel  could  clear  in  Upper  California  ? 

Ans.  16. — I  believe  not. 

Ques.  17. — Do  you  know  of  any  other  voyage  having  been  made 
from  Upper  California  to  the  western  coast  of  Mexico  during  two 
months  preceding  your  departure  on  that  voyage  ? 

Ans.  17. — I  do  not. 

Ques.  18. — Can  you  state  with  confidence  that  no  voyage  of  that 
kind  was  made  during  the  two  weeks  prior  to  your  departure  ? 

Ans.  18. — I  can.  They  had  been  in  treaty  for  another  vessel  be- 
fore they  chartered  mine  ;  but  she  did  not  go. 

35 


426 

Ques.  19. — Are  you  acquainted  with  James  McKinlay  ? 

Ans.  19. — I  am. 

Ques.  20. — Have  you  any  knowledge  of  his  having  made  a  voyage 
from  California  in  the  Brig  Juanita  to  Mazatlan,  at  the  time  of  your 
trip  to  Acapulco  ? 

Ans.  20. — I  have  not.  He  made  a  voyage  there  I  know,  but  I 
think  it  was  sometime  prior  to  mine.  I  do  not  know  when  she  reached 
Mazatlan. 

Ques.  21. — Did  you  touch  at  any  intermediate  point  on  your  voyage 
from  Monterey  to  Acapulco  ? 

Ans.  21. — I  did  not. 

Ques.  22. — Look  at  the  document  marked  "  J.  P.  No.  4,"  now  at- 
tached to  your  deposition,  and  of  which  the  following  is  a  translation : 


SEAL 


The  Citizen  Juan  Augustin  Marin,  Capt.  of  Frigate  of  the  National 
Navy,  Commanding  the  Navy  of  the  Southern  Department,  and  Cap- 
tain of  the  Port  of  Acapulco. 

I  certify  that  by  the  precedings  documents  which  exist  in  the  office 
under  my  charge  that  in  relation  to  the  Kanaka  Bark  Don  Quijote, 
it  shows  that  this  vessel  anchored  in  this  Port  the  21st  of  April, 
1846,  coming  from  Monterey  in  ballast.  Her  Captn.  John  Paty,  in 
17  days  of  navigation,  brings  passenger  the  Captn.  Dn  Andres  Cas- 
tillero,  Commissioner  for  the  Alta  California,  near  the  Supreme  Govt. 
This  Bark  sailed  for  the  Sandwich  Islands  the  18th  day  of  May,  of 
the  sameyear,  with  a  cargo  of  produce  of  the  Country,  and  were 
passengers  Enrique  Malekembaker  a  German,  and  two  young  Mexi- 
cans Jacinto  and  Jose'  Turque. 

Acapulco,  July  10th,  1857. 

J.  AUGUSTIN  MARIN. 

and  state  whether  the  same  as  now  translated  to  you  contains  the  truth 
according  to  your  recollection  of  the  facts. 

Anst.  22. — All  as  to  my  arrival  is  true.  All  the  document  is  true, 
except  that  I  did  not  depart  for  the  Sandwich  Islands  from  Acapulco, 
but  returned  to  the  Coast  of  California. 

It  is  not  correct  as  to  the  passengers  who  returned  with  me. 

(Counsel  for  Claimants  objects  to  the  introduction  of  documents 
"  J.  P.  No.  2,  No.  3,  and  No.  4,"  and  questions  connected  with 
them.) 

Ques.  23. — Look  at  the  document  marked  "  J.  P.  No.  5,"  now 


427 

attached  to  your  deposition,  and  of  which  the  following  is  a  transla- 
tion, to  wit : 

.  ^>~~*  j      Carlos  Horn,  first  Lieutenant  of  the  National  Navy  and 
]  seal  [  Captain  of  this  Port. 


I  certify  that  according  to  the  documents  existing  in  the  archives  of 
the  office  of  the  Captn  of  the  Port,  The  Hawaiian  Bark  Don  Quixote, 
Capt.  John  Paty,  anchored  in  this  roadstead  of  San  Bias,  the  thir- 
teenth day  of  April,  eighteen  hundred  and  forty-six,  coming  from  the 
Port  of  Monterey,  in  the  Alta  California. 

(Signed)  CARLOS  HORN. 

Ygnacio  Echagaray,  Colonel  in  the  Army,  Political  Chief 
seal  J  and  Commandant  General  of  this  Canton : 


I  certify  that  the  signature  which  precedes  is  the  same  which  is 
used  in  all  the  public  and  private  acts  by  the  citizen  Carlos  Horn, 
Captain  of  the  Port  of  San  Bias,  and  Military  Commandant  of  the 
said  place,  and  full  faith  and  credit  can  be  given  to  the  same,  and  that 
it  may  be  used  when  necessary. 

I  have  certified  this  under  my  hand  and  seal  the  18th  day  of  July, 
1857. 

(Signed)  Y.  ECHAGARAY. 

and  say  whether  that  certificate  as  now  translated  to  you,  contains  the 
truth  according  to  your  knowledge  of  the  facts. 

(Counsel  for  Claimants  objects  to  the  introduction  of  document  "  J. 
P.  No.  5,"  and  the  questions  connected  with  them.) 

Ans.  23. — It  does  not.  I  went  direct  from  Monterey  to  Aca- 
pulco.  I  stopped  there  on  my  way  up  to  Monterey,  about  the  middle 
of  June.  I  was  also  in  there  with  the  Don  Quixote  in  April,  1845. 
I  do  not  recollect  being  there  with  the  Don  Quixote  at  any  other 
times. 

Ques.  24. — How  long  did  you  remain  at  Acapulco  in  1846,  before 
you  left  that  port  for  Upper  California  ? 

Ans.  24. — I  remained  there  from  the  21st  of  April  to  the  18th  of 
May. 

Ques.  25. — For  whom  or  for  what  were  you  waiting  there  ? 

Ans.  25. — Waiting  for  Don  Andres  Castillero,  whom  I  was  accord- 
ing to  my  charter  to  bring  back  if  he  wanted  to  come.  I  waited  so 
long  as  I  have  mentioned,  and  then  heard  that  he  would  meet  me  at 
Mazatlan  or  San  Bias.  I  touched  at  both  places  but  heard  nothing  of 
him,  and  then  came  on  to  California. 


428 

I  think  Castillero  left  Acapulco  about  three  days  after  our  arrival. 
I  remember  the  circumstance  of  his  servant  coming  on  board  for  his 
luggage.     I  have  never  seen  him  since. 

Cross-Examination. 

Ques.  26. — Did  you  know  anything  of  the  business  which  took  Cas- 
tillero to  Mexico,  or  for  what  purpose  he  went  there  ? 

Ans.  26. — I  did  not. 

Ques.  27. — Did  he  take  anything  down  with  him  from  California  ? 

Ans.  27. — He  took  no  merchandize,  he  had  some  specimens  of  ore 
with  him.  I  think  it  was  silver  ore.  I  do  not  know  what  other  kind 
he  had. 

Ques.  28. — When  you  expected  him  back  from  Mexico,  did  you  ex- 
pect any  others  to  come  with  him,  who  would  in  your  vessel  come  to 
California  with  him  ? 

Ans.  28. — I  expected  that  there  would  have  been  passengers,  but 
did  not  expect  them  particularly  with  him. 

Ques.  29. — Did  you  hear  anything  concerning  his  bringing  up 
miners  to  California;  if  so,  from  whom  ? 

Ans.  29. — I  heard  something  about  it  from  Mr.  Larkin,  my  agent; 
I  mean  about  bringing  up  mining  apparatus.  I  do  not  recollect  what 
it  was. 

Ques.  30. — Did  you  anticipate  a  renewal  of  your  charter,  or  any 
other  voyage  to  Acapulco,  on  account  of  any  mining  business,  or  any 
business  connected  with  Castillero  ? 

Ans.  30.— I  did  not. 

Ques.  31. — Did  Castillero  speak  English  at  the  time  of  the  voyage 
down? 

Ans.  31. — He  did  not.     He  spoke  Spanish. 

Ques.  32. — Did  you  speak  Spanish  at  that  time  ? 

Ans.  32. — I  did  not  speak  it  well.  I  could  not  carry  on  a  conver- 
sation freely. 

Ques.  33. — Did  you  have  much  conversation  with  Castillero  ? 

Ans.  33. — I  did  not.     I  only  spoke  a  very  few  words. 

Ques.  34. — Did  Castillero  speak  with  you  at  all  on  the  subject  of 
his  visit  to  Mexico  ? 

Ans.  34. — I  do  not  remember  that  he  did. 

Direct  Resumed. 

Ques.  35. — Did  you  see  the  ore  which  Castillero  took  with  him  on 
your  vessel  ? 
Ans.  35.— I  did. 
Ques.  36. — Describe  how  much  there  was  of  it. 


429 

Ans.  36. — I  do  not  remember  exactly.  There  was  about  a  bucket 
full,  a  common  bucket.  I  do  not  know  that  I  can  distinguish  cinnabar 
from  other  metallic  ore.  The  ore  that  Castillero  took  down  was  of 
several  kinds.  I  am  no  judge  of  it.  I  saw  among  it  some  ore  which 
I  took  to  be  silver.     That  ore  I  think  I  knew. 

Ques.  37. — Did  you  hear  of  the  war  between  the  United  States  and 
Mexico,  before  you  sailed  from  Acapulco  ? 

Ans.  37. — I  did.     I  think  it  was  2  or  3  days  before  I  sailed. 

Ques.  38. — In  what  form  did  the  news  of  the  war  reach  you  ? 

Ans.  38. — I  merely  heard  that  a  battle  had  been  fought,  and  that 
the  Americans  had  been  defeated,  and  that  war  was  existing. 

JOHN  PATY. 

Sworn  to  and  subscribed  before  me  this  15th  day  of  December, 
A.  D.  1857. 

J.  EDGAR  GRYMES, 
Special  Commissioner. 
Filed  Dec.  16, 1857. 

JOHN  A.  MONROE, 

Clerk, 
By  J.  EDGAR  GRYMES, 
Deputy. 


EXHIBIT  «  J.  P.,  No.  1." 

INFORMATION  FOR  WHOM   IT  MAY   CONCERN. 

First. — In  April,  A.  D.,  eighteen  hundred  and  forty-six,  I  charter- 
tered  the  bark  Don  Quixote,  under  my  command,  to  the  Mexican  Gov- 
ernment at  Monterey,  for  a  voyage  to  Acapulco  and  back  to  Monterey. 
Thomas  0.  Larkin  acting  as  my  agent. 

Second. — I  sailed  from  Monterey  on  the  fourth  day  of  April,  A.  D. 
eighteen  hundred  and  forty-six,  bound  for  Acapulco. 

Third. — Don  Andres  Castillero  and  his  servant,  or  companion, 
("  Lazaro  Pina  I  think  was  his  name,)  Mrs.  John  Paty,  child  and 
servant,  were  passengers  on  board. 

Fourth. — We  arrived  at  Acapulco  on  the  twenty-first  day  of  April, 
A.  D.  eighteen  hundred  and  forty-six ;  no  person  left  the  vessel  or 
came  on  board  during  the  passage. 

Fifth. — Don  Andres  Castillero  and  his  servant  left  Acapulco  for 


430 

Mexico  on  the  twenty-fourth  day  of  April,  eighteen  hundred  and  forty- 
six. 

Sixth. — I  agreed  to  wait  twenty  days  at  Acapulco  for  Don  Andres 
Castellero,  and  after  waiting  until  the  16th  of  May,  I  heard  that  he 
wished  to  meet  me  at  Mazatlan,  consequently  I  left  Acapulco  on  the 
18th  of  May  for  that  place  and  St.  Bias. 

Seventh. — Capt.  John  Vioget,  Mrs.  John  Paty,  child,  and  servant 
were  passengers  from  Acapulco. 

Eighth. — Touched  at  San  Bias  on  the  4th  June,  and  left  on  the  six 
for  Mazatlan. 

Ninth. — Arrived  at  Mazatlan  on  the  9th  June,  where  I  waited  until 
the  16th  June,  and  not  hearing  anything  of  Den  Andres  Castillero,  I 
concluded  not  to  wait  for  him  any  longer  ;  took  on  board  Mrs.  Anita 
Castanares,  daughter  of  Rafel  Gonzales,  of  Monterey,  and  Mrs.  Car- 
men, daughter  of  Feliciano  Sobreano,  of  Monterey,  and  made  sail. 

Tenth. — Touched  at  Cape  St.  Lucas  on  the  21st  Sune,  and  sailed 
again  the  same  day  for  St.  Pedro. 

Eleventh. — I  have  not  had  any  information  from  Don  Andres  Cas- 
tillero or  his  servant,  either  at  San  Bias  or  at  Mazatlan. 

Twelfth. — I  arrived  at  St.  Pedro  on  the  27th  July,  and  sailed  again 
on  the  9th  of  August  for  Sta.  Barbara. 

Thirteenth. — Arrived  at  St\  Barbara  on  the  13th  of  August,  and 
sailed  again  on  the  16th  for  St.  Lewis  Obispo. 

Fourteenth. — I  arrived  at  St.  Lewis  on  the  19th,  and  sailed  again 
for  Monterey  on  the  23d  of  June,  where  I  arrived  on  the  27th. 

Fifteenth. — I  have  enclose  a  receipt  from  the  post  office,  for  letters 
mailed  at  Acapulco. 

Sixteenth. — The  charter,  for  the  Don  Quixote,  was  paid  by  the  Gov- 
ernment, at  Monterey,  part  in  advance,  and  the  balance  after  my  re- 
turn. 

Honolulu,  9th  July,  1857. 

JOHN  PATY. 


constlate  of  the  united  states  of  america, 
Honolulu,  Hawaiian  Islands. 

On  this  9th  day  of  July  A  D  1857,  personally  appeared  before  me 
the  undersigned  Vice  Consul  of  the  United  States  of  America  at  Hon- 


431 

olulu  Hawaiian  Islands  Capt.  John  Paty  to  me  well  known  and  who 
subscribed  and  made  oath  to  the  foregoing  statement  written  upon 
three  pages,  and  I  hereby  certify  that  the  foregoing  statement  of 
Capt  John  Paty  is  entitled  to  full  faith  and  credit. 

n      In  testimony  whereof  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  Con- 

seal  (  sular  Seal,  at  Honolulu  H.  I.  this  ninth  day  of  July  A  D 

I  1857. 

GEO  A  LATHROP 

US  V  Consul 


EXHIBIT  "  J.  P.  No.  2." 

Copy. 
Dear  Sir 

Agreeable  to  our  contract  relative  to  the  charter  of  the  Bark 
Don  Quixote  I  have  to  inform  you  that  I  am  now  ready  to  sail,  and  am 
only  waiting  for  the  passenger  or  passengers. 

You  know  it  is  of  much  importance  for  me  to  return  back  to  this 
coast  as  soon  as  possible  and  unless  the  contract  is  complied  with  by  or 
on  the  4th  day  of  this  month  I  shall  consider  it  null  and  void  and  shall 
require  damages  accordingly. 
T.  0.  Larkin  Esq. 
Monterey  April  2,  1846. 

Your  Obdt  Servt 

JOHN  PATY. 
(Endorsed)     Copy  of  a  letter  to  T.  0.  Larkin 

Monterey  Apr  2  '46 


EXHIBIT  "  J.  P.  No.  3." 

Satisfizo  pr.  francata.  en  esta  admon.  Dn.  Juan  Paty,  capitn.  de  la 
Barca  Quijote,  de  la  Banda.  se  Sn.  Luichi 

lo  siguiente "  asaver 

u » 

Por  un  pliego  con  14  onzas,  p\  Vera  cruz |  8  y  4  r8. 

Por  uno  de  una  onza  pa.  dho.  punto "  1  "  0 

Pr.  una  carta  pa.  los  Estados  unidos  d1.  N "  0  "  4 

Por  un  impreso  pa.  los  mismos "  0  "  1 

Son $10  "1 

Admon.  de  Correo  de  Acapco.  Ab1.  22  1846 

JOSE  BRACHO. 
(Entd) 
(Endorsed) 

Receipt  for  letters  mailed  at  Acapulco  for  Mr  Larkin  1846. 
(In  pencil)  Monterey 


432 
EXHIBIT  "  J.  P.  No.  4." 

(CERTIFICATE   OF  THE   CAPITAN   DEL   PUERTO   DE   ACAPULCO.) 


El  Ciud0.  Juan  Agustin  Marin  Capn  de  Fragata  de  la  Armada  Na- 
tional Comandante  de  Marina  del  departamento  del  Stir  y  Capn  del 
Puerto  de  Acapulco 

Certifico  :  q  por  los  antecedentes  q  obran  en  e*sta  Oficina  de  mi 
cargo  y  Aduana  Maritima,  con  relacion  a  la  Barca  kanaha  "  D  Quijo- 
te,"  consta  q  6sta  buque  fonde6  en  este  Puerto  el  veinte  y  uno  de 
Abril  de  mil  ochocientos  cuarenta  y  seis  (1846)  procedente  de  Monter- 
rey en  Lastre  su  Capn  Jhon  Paty  con  diez  y  siete  dias  de  Navegacion, 
de  pasaje  el  Capn  D.  Andres  Castillero  comicionado  por  la  Alta  Cali- 
fornia serea  del  Supmo.  Gobierno.  Esta  barca  dio  la  Vela  para  las 
islas  Sandavoich  el  diez  y  ocho  de  Mayo  del  mismo  aiio  con  su  carga 
frutos  del  pais,  y  de  pasaje  k  Enrique  Malekembuhn  Aleman  y  dos 
Jovenes  Mejicanos  Jacinto  y  Jose*  Ma.  Jurque. 

Acapulco  Julio  diez  y  ocho  de  mil  ochocientos  cincuenta  y  siete. 

J.  AGUSTIN  MARIN 


Consulate  of  the  United  States, 
At  Acapulco,  Mexico. 

This  is  to  certify  that  the  foregoing  stgnature  of  Senor  J.  Augustin 
Marin  is  personally  known  to  me  to  be  his  true  signature  and  as  such 
is  entitled  to  full  faith  and  credence. 

Given  at  the  Consulate  of  the  United  States  in  the  Port  of  Acapul- 
co Republic  of  Mexico  on  this  the  18th  day  of  July  A  D.  1857. 

s      In  testimony  whereof  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and 

seal  (  affixed  the  seal  of  this  consulate. 

I  CHARLES  L.  DENMAN, 

U.  S.  Consul 


433 
EXHIBIT  "J.  P.  No.  5." 

Carlos  Horn  ler  Teniente  de  la  Armada  Nac1.  y  Capitan  de  este 
Puerto. 

/ A N       Certifico  :  que  segun  acreditan  las  constancias 

(  &    .  )  existenses  en  el  archivo  de  esta  Capitania  de  Puer- 

\  j  to,  la  Barca  Canaca  "D.  Quijote,"  su  Capitan 

John  Paty  fondeo  en  esta  Rada  de  S.  Bias  el  dio 


v 

trese  de  Abril  de  mil  ochocientos  cuarenta  y  seis,  prosedente  del  Puer 
to  de  Monterey  de  la  Alta  California. 

Y  para  los  usos  que  convenga  doy  el  presente  bajo  mi  firma  y  sello 
de  oficio,  en  el  Citado  Puerto  de  San  Bias,  a  cuatro  de  Julio  de  mil 
ochocientos  cincuenta  y  siete. 

CARLOS  HORN. 


^ A N       Ygnacio  Echagaray  Coronel  de  eje'rcito,  Gefe 

(  a    j  )  Politico  y  Comandante  pral  de  este  Canton  : 

\  \      Certifico  :  que  la  firma  que  antesede  es  la 

v v '  misma  que  usa  en  todossis  asuntos  particulares 

y  publicos  el  C*  Carlos  Horn,  Capitan  de  Puerto  en  San  Bias  y  coman- 
dante Militar  de  dha.  plaza,  por  lo  mismo  puede  dareele  entera  fe*  y 
cre'dito.  Y  para  los  usos  &  que  haya  lugar  estendi  el  presente  con  mi 
sello  y  firma  4  los  dies  y  ocho  dias  del  mes  de  Julio  de  mil  ochocientos 
cincuenta  y  siete. 

Y.  ECHAGARAY. 


DEPOSITION  OF  JAMES  ALEXANDER  FORBES. 

United  States  Distrigt  Court,         ) 
Northern  District  of  California.  ) 

The  United  States      ) 

vs.  > 

Andres  Castillero.    ) 

San  Francisco,  Dec.  14th,  1857. 

On  this  day,  before  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States  for  the 
Northern  District  of  California,  came  James  Alexander  Forbes,  a  wit- 
ness produced  on  behalf  of  the  United  States  in  Case  No.  420,  being 


434 

an  appeal  from  the  Board  of  Commissioners  to  ascertain  and  settle  the 
private  Land  Claims  in  the  State  of  California,  in  Case  No.  366  on 
the  Docket  of  the  said  Board  of  Commissioners,  and  was  duly  sworn 
and  testified  as  follows : 

Present  :  Ogden  Hoffman,  District  Judge,  and  counsel  for  United 
States  and  for  claimants. 

Question  by  United  States  Attorney. 

My  name  is  James  Alexander  Forbes ;  my  age  is  52  ;  am  a  native 
of  Scotland  ;  have  resided  in  California  28  years. 

Question. — Have  you  held  any  public  employment  during  the  exist- 
ence of  the  Mexican  Government,  and  if  so,  what  ? 

Answer. — I  was  British  Vice  Consul  eight  years,  from  1843  to 
1851. 

Ques. — During  that  time  was  there  a  British  Consul  at  Tepic,  and 
who  was  he  ? 

Ans. — There  were  two  persons  exercising  the  functions  of  British 
Consul  at  Tepic  during  that  time ;  one  was  Mr.  Eustace  Barron  and 
the  other  Mr.  Alexander  Forbes.  I  do  not  recollect  precisely  during 
what  years  they  respectively  held  office.  I  believe  that  Mr.  Eustace 
Barron  exercised  those  functions  from  1843  to  1847  or  1848.  Mr. 
Alexander  Forbes  succeeded  him  I  think  about  1847  or  1848.  He 
held  office  I  think  until  1850,  when  he  was  succeeded  by  Mr.  Eustace 
W.  Barron,  son  of  the  former. 

Ques. — Were  these  three  gentlemen  all  of  the  house  of  Barron, 
Forbes  &  Co.,  during  this  time  ? 

Ans. — I  cannot  state  at  wThat  time  Mr.  Eustace  W.  Barron  became 
a  member  of  the  firm  of  Barron,  Forbes  &  Co.,  nor  can  I  state  of 
my  own  knowledge  that  Mr.  Alexander  Forbes  was  a  member  of  that 
firm. 

Ques. — Who  was  Mr.  William  Forbes  ? 

Ans. — He  was  a  member  of  the  firm,  and  the  one  whom  I  knew 
there  as  the  prominent  active  partner  in  the  house. 

Ques. — Did  you  ever  have  a  personal  acquaintance  with  Mr.  Alex- 
ander Forbes  ;  if  so,  where  and  when  ? 

I  did ;  in  California,  in  1848. 

Ques. — When  did  he  arrive  in  California  ? 

Ans. — I  am  not  certain  as  to  the  precise  date.  It  was  the  latter 
part  of  1847  I  think. 

Ques. — Can  you  not  recall  the  month  ? 

Ans. — As  my  recollection  serves  it  was  in  the  latter  part  of  the 
year.     I  cannot  state  the  precise  time. 


435 

Ques. — After  you  saw  Mr.  Alexander  Forbes  in  California  in 
1847-'8,  did  you  see  him  elsewhere  ? 

Ans I  saw  him  in  the  city  of  Tepic,  in  Mexico,  in  May,  1849. 

Ques. — When  you  saw  him  in  Tepic  did  he  appoint  you  his  agent 
for  any  purpose  ;  if  yea,  for  what  purpose  ? 

Ans. — He  did.  He  appointed  me  to  take  charge  of  the  mine  of 
New  Almaden. 

Ques. — Did  he  confer  that  authority  by  writing  ? 

Ans. — He  did.  I  received  a  written  power  of  Attorney.  That 
document  is  in  my  possession.  I  believe  it  is  on  record  in  Santa  Clara 
County,  but  I  am  not  certain  ;  at  all  events  I  have  the  paper. 

Ques. — Have  you  got  it  here  in  Court  ? 

Ans. — I  have  not.     It  is  in  my  house  in  Santa  Clara. 

Ques. — How  long  did  you  remain  in  Tepic  on  the  occasion  of  which 
you  have  spoken,  and  when  did  you  arrive  in  California  ? 

Ans. — As  far  as  my  recollection  serves  me,  I  left  California  about 
May  1st,  1849,  and  I  arrived  in  San  Francisco  about  June  13th  of 
the  same  year,  but  I  am  not  positive. 

Ques. — Will  you  endeavor  to  remember  at  what  time  you  left 
Tepic  ? 

Ans. — I  have  said  that  I  arrived  in  San  Francisco  about  the  13th 
June.  I  came  in  a  steamer,  and  I  must  have  been  some  nine  or  ten 
days  on  the  voyage. 

Ques. — When  you  arrived  in  California  did  you  do  anything  in  pur- 
suance of  the  authority  you  had  received  from  Alexander  Forbes  ? 

Ans. — Not  immediately.  In  pursuance  of  that  power  of  Attorney, 
I  took  charge  of  the  mine  of  New  Almaden. 

Ques. — How  long  did  you  hold  charge  of  the  mine,  and  in  what 
capacity  did  you  hold  it  ? 

Ans. — I  had  charge  of  the  mine  and  Hacienda  from  October  1849, 
to  May  1850.     I  held  it  as  Director. 

Ques. — What  was  the  nature  of  your  duties  ? 

Ans. — The  general  supervision  of  the  affairs  of  the  mine. 

Ques. — What  duties  did  you  perform  while  holding  charge  of  the 
mine? 

Ans. — Those  that  I  have  expressed  in  my  previous  answer.  The 
supervision  of  the  mine  included  the  payment  of  laborers  and  the  di- 
rection of  their  operations. 

Ques. — At  that  time  did  you  own  an  interest  in  the  mine  ? 

Ans. — I  did. 

Ques. — Did  you  make  reports  of  what  you  did  in  the  course  of  your 
duties.     If  so  ;  to  whom  and  how — whether  orally  or  in  writing  ? 

Ans. — I  made  written  reports  to  Barron,  Forbes  &  Co.,  as  the 
Directors  general  of  the  mine,  of  the  disbursements  made  by  me. 
They  were  generally  sent  by  steamer. 


436 

Ques. — In  the  year  1849  did  the  mail  steamers  stop  at  any  Mexi- 
can ports  ;  if  so,  at  what  ports  and  how  often  did  they  run  ? 

Ans. — The  mail  steamers  sailed  from  here  monthly,  and  generally 
stopped  at  Mazatlan  and  San  Bias. 

Ques. — Did  you  write  by  every  steamer  to  the  persons  you  have 
mentioned  ? 

Ans. — I  did  generally. 

Ques. — Was  it  your  custom  to  write  a  single  letter  or  many  letters 
of  different  dates  by  each  steamer  ? 

Ans. — My  correspondence  with  those  gentlemen  was  voluminous 
and  required  several  days  to  prepare  it.  I  dated  my  letters  from  day 
to  day  as  I  prepared  them. 

Ques. — Are  you  acquainted  with  the  firm  signature  of  Barron, 
Forbes  &  Co.,  and  with  the  handwriting  of  either  of  the  partners  or 
of  their  clerks  at  the  time  you  have  spoken  of? 

Ans. — I  am  acquainted  with  the  handwriting  of  Mr.  Alexander 
Forbes,  Mr.  Eustace  Barron,  and  Mr.  Eustace  W.  Barron. 

Ques. — How  did  you  acquire  your  knowledge  of  their  hand- 
writing ? 

Ans. — I  have  received  letters  from  them  all.  Have  seen  them  all 
write  except  the  elder  Mr.  Barron. 

(Paper  produced  marked  "  F.  No.  20,  J.  A.  Monroe.") 

Ques. — Look  at  this  paper  and  say  if  you  know  the  handwriting  ? 
Ans. — The  body  is  in  the  handwriting  of  Mr.   W.  E.  Barron,  the 
gentleman  now  in  court,  the  signature  is  that  of  Mr.  William  Forbes. 

(Paper  offered  in  evidence — counsel  for  claimants  objects  to  the  let- 
ter as  an  admission  on  the  ground  that  there  are  other  parties  in 
interest  as  appears  by  the  record  who  are  tenants  in  common,  and 
whose  interests  will  be  affected  thereby. 

Also,  that  it  does  not  appear  by  whom  it  was  received  or  where  it 
came  from.) 

Ques. — Are  you  the  person  to  whom  this  letter  was  addressed ;  was 
it  received  by  you ;  when  and  where  ? 

Ans. — I  am  the  person  :  I  received  it  at  the  mine  New  Almaden  ; 
it  was  transmitted  to  me  by  my  agent  in  San  Francisco  ;  it  was  re- 
ceived 15  or  20  days  after  its  date. 

(Paper  offered  in  evidence.  Received  and  read  subject  to  objection, 
and  attached  to  deposition,  marked  "  0.  H.  No.  1.") 

(The  witness  desires  to  state  that  he  was  in  error  as  to  the  date  and 


437 

place  of  the  reception  of  the  above  letter.  He  now  states  that  he  re- 
ceived it  in  Tepic,  and  that  he  remembers  the  fact  from  hearing  the 
contents  read  which  he  had  not  previously  adverted  to.) 

Ques. — What  were  the  circumstances  you  had  communicated  to 
Barron,  Forbes  &  Co.,  and  what  were  the  lands  alluded  to  in  that 
letter  ? 

(Question  objected  to.) 

Ans. — As  far  as  I  recollect  I  considered  it  necessary  to  obtain  an 
extension  for  the  purpose  of  procuring  wood,  and  I  recommended  the 
purchase  of  a  part  of  the  rancho  of  San  Vicente.  I  was  thereupon 
authorized  to  do  so  by  those  gentlemen. 

Ques. — What  part  of  the  ranjcho  were  you  to  purchase,  and  from 
whom  ? 

Ans. — The  south-western  part.  I  was  to  purchase  it  from  the 
family  of  the  deceased  J  ose*  Reyes  Berreyesa. 

Ques. — Please  to  explain  what  you  mean  by  an  "  extension "  of 
land  in  your  previous  answer.  What  was  to  be  embraced  within  that 
extension  ? 

Ans. — I  meant  an  extension  of  facilities  for  the  purpose  of  obtain- 
ing wood.  The  land  referred  to  was  all  the  land  on  the  western  side 
of  the  creek  of  Alamitos  to  which  the  Berreyesa's  laid  claim. 

The  overtures  made  by  me  did  not  express  any  definite  quantity  of 
land.     I  was  desirous  to  purchase  their  right,  if  they  had  any  right. 

Ques. — What  are  the  relative  positions  of  the  mine  and  hacienda, 
and  the  lands  to  which  you  refer  ? 

Ans. — The  principal  part  of  the  land  lay  to  the  north-east  of  the 
mine  and  Hacienda.     The  latter  are  on  the  same  side  of  the  creek. 

Ques. — How  would  the  remainder  lie  ? 

Ans. — It  would  be  impossible  for  me  to  state  how  far  the  claims  of 
the  Berreyesa's  reached.  I  was  desirous  of  purchasing  all  the  lands 
claimed  by  them  on  the  western  side  of  the  creek. 

Ques. — Look  at  the  paper  now  shown  you  marked  4  F.  No.  21, 
"J.  A.  Monroe,"  and  say  in  whose  handwriting  the  body  of  that 
paper  in  the  Spanish  is,  and  also  the  endorsement  in  English. 

Ans. — This  document  is  in  my  own  handwriting,  also  the  endorse- 
ment. 

(Paper  offered  in  evidence.     Objected.) 

Ques. — Were  the  words  of  the  endorsement  written  by  you  at  the 
time  of  their  date  ? 
Ans. — They  were. 


438 

Ques. — Did  you  or  did  you  not  leave  with  Alexander  Forbes  the 
memorandum,  as  stated  by  that  endorsement  ? 
Ans. — I  did. 

(Paper  read  in  evidence,  subject  to  exception.  Marked  "  0.  H.  No. 
2,"  and  attached  to  deposition.) 

Ques. — Look  at  paper  now  shown  you  marked  "  F.  No.  23,  J.  A. 
Monroe, "  and  say  in  whose  handwriting  it  is. 

Ans. — The  body  of  the  writing  and  the  signature  are  in  my  hand- 
writing ;  also  the  endorsement. 

Ques. — Was  that  endorsement  put  on  at  its  date  ? 

Ans. — I  presume  it  was. 

Ques. — Is  that  endorsement  true  ? 

Ans. — I  did  send  a  letter  of  which  that  is  a  copy  to  Mr.  William 
Forbes  at  the  date  mentioned  in  the  copy. 

(Paper  offered  in  evidence.  Objected  to.  Received  in  evidence 
subject  to  objections,  and  attached  to  deposition  and  marked  *f  0.  H. 
No.  3." 

Ques. — Please  look  at  paper  marked  "  F.  No.  23,  J.  A.  Monroe," 
and  state  in  whose  handwriting  are  the  body,  the  signature  and  the 
endorsement. 

Ans. — The  body  of  the  letter  and  the  signature  are  in  my  hand- 
writing ;  also  the  endorsement,  except  the  lower  part,  (that  of  the 
Clerk  of  this  Court. 

Ques. — Is  the  fact  stated  in  the  endorsement  true  ?  Is  this  a  copy 
of  a  letter  to  Alexander  Forbes,  written  at  the  date  it  purports  to  bear 
and  sent  to  him  ? 

Ans. — Yes  sir. 

Ques. — Look  at  the  date  of  the  endorsement  and  that  of  the  body 
of  the  letter  and  state  how  you  account  for  the  difference  between 
them  ? 

Ans. — I  presume  it  is  a  clerical  mistake.  I  was  in  the  habit  of 
writing  numerous  letters  about  the  latter  part  of  the  month,  and  may 
have  made  a  mistake  in  the  date. 

(Paper  offered  in  evidence.  Objected  to.  Received  subject  to 
objection.     Attached  to  deposition  and  marked  "  0.  H.  No.  4.") 

Ques. — Look  at  the  letter  marked  "  F.  No.  16,  J.  A.  Monroe," 
and  say  in  whose  handwriting  are  the  body,  the  signatures  and  the 
endorsement  ? 

Ans. — The  body  of  the  letter  is  in  the  handwriting  of  Mr.  William 


439 

E.  Barron  ;  the  signature  is  that  of  Mr.  Alexander  Forbes,  and  the 
endorsement  is  in  my  handwriting. 

Ques. — Are  you  the  James  A.  Forbes  to  whom  it  was  addressed ; 
was  it  received  by  you  and  when  ? 

Ans. — I  am  the  person  to  whom  it  was  addressed.  It  was  received 
by  me  probably  a  month  after  its  date.     I  cannot  precisely  state. 

(Paper  offered  in  evidence.  Objected  to.  Read  subject  to  excep- 
tion and  attached  to  deposition,  marked  "  0.  H.  No.  5." 

Ques. — Did  you  receive  the  notarial  copy  of  the  grant  to  Andres 
Castillero  mentioned  in  this  letter. 

Ans. — I  did. 

Ques. — What  did  you  do  with  it  ? 

Ans. — I  gave  it  to  Don  Isadoro  de  la  Torre  on  the  18th  June, 
1850. 

Ques. — What  Mr.  de  la  Torre  is  this  of  whom  you  speak  ?  Had 
he  any  connection  with  this  mine  ;  if  so,  what  ? 

Ans. — 1  speak  of  Don  Isadoro  de  la  Torre,  member  of  the  firm  of 
Jecke,  Torre  &  Co.  He  had  an  interest  at  that  time  in  the  mine  and 
in  the  contract  for  working  it.  He  succeeded  me  as  superintendent 
of  the  mine. 

Ques.  -Where  was  he  then  ? 

Ans. — I  transmitted  it  with  other  documents  to  him  when  he  was 
at  the  mine  of  New  Almaden,  and  I  was  at  my  residence  in  Santa 
Clara. 

Ques. — By  whom  did  you  transmit  it  ? 

Ans. — I  am  not  certain  whether  by  the  hands  of  Mr.  Robert 
Birnie  or  some  other  person  in  the  service  of  the  mine.  I  know  he 
received  the  documents. 

Ques. — Are  you  acquainted  with  the  signature  and  handwriting 
of  the  Mr.  Alexander  Forbes  of  whom  you  have  spoken  ?  If  so,  what 
are  your  means  of  knowledge  ? 

Aris. — I  have  had  voluminous  correspondence  with  him,  and  have 
oftentimes  seen  him  write. 

Ques. — Look  at  the  paper  marked  "  F.  No.  7,  J.  A.  Monroe,"  now 
shown  you,  and  say  in  whose  handwriting  it  is. 

Ans. — The  body  and  the  signature  are  in  the  handwriting  of  Alex- 
ander Forbes. 

Ques. — Are  you  the  James  A.  Forbes  to  whom  it  is  addressed  ? 

Ans. — I  am. 

Ques. — At  or  about  what  time  did  you  receive  it  ? 

Ans. — I  cannot  state  positively,  probably  about  the  latter  part  of 
December,  1849,  a  month  or  so  after  its  date. 


440 

(Paper  offered  in  evidence.  Objected  to.  Received  subject  to 
objection.     Attached  to  deposition  and  marked  "  0.  H.  No.  6.") 

Ques. — Look  at  the  paper  marked  "  F.  No.  9,  J.  A.  Monroe,"  now 
shown  you,  and  state  in  whose  handwriting  it  is,  and  whether  you  are 
the  person  to  whom  it  is  addressed,  and  whether  you  received  it ;  if  so, 
when? 

Ans. — The  body  and  signature  are  in  the  handwriting  of  Mr.  Alex- 
ander Forbes.  I  am  the  person  to  whom  it  is  addressed.  I  received 
it  a  short  time  after  its  date.     I  can't  say  when. 

(Paper  offered  in  evidence.  Objected  to.  Read  subject  to  objec- 
tion.    Attached  to  deposition  and  marked  "  0.  H.  No.  7.") 

Ques. — Did  you  receive  the  document  of  which  that  letter  speaks, 
being  the  grant  to  Andres  Castillero  ? 

Ans. — I  don't  recollect  having  received  any  other  document  than 
that  to  which  I  have  already  testified. 

Ques. — Did  you  ask  Probst,  Smith  &  Co.,  for  the  document  al- 
luded to  ? 

Ans. — I  can't  exactly  state.  I  don't  recollect  whether  I  did  or  not. 
They  were  my  agents  in  San  Francisco.  They  received  my  corres- 
pondence and  transmitted  it  to  me. 

I  do  not  know  whether  the  document  I  received  from  them  and  gave 
to  Don  Isodoro  de  la  Torre  was  the  notarial  copy  alluded  to  in  a 
former  letter,  or  that  alluded  to  in  the  last  letter. 

Ques. — Can  you  state  anything  more  with  reference  to  the  docu- 
ment spoken  of  in  this  last  letter  ? 

Ans. — No,  sir. 

Ques. — Look  at  the  paper  now  shown  you,  marked  "  F.  No.  10, 
J.  A.  Monroe,"  and  state  in  whose  handwriting  it  is  ;  whether  you 
are  the  person  to  whom  it  is  addressed  ;  whether  you  received  it,  and 
when. 

Ans. — The  body  and  signature  are  in  the  handwriting  of  Mr.  Alex- 
ander Forbes.  I  am  the  person  to  whom  it  is  addressed.  I  received 
it  in  the  usual  course  of  steamer  after  its  date. 

(Paper  offered  in  evidence  objected  to.  Received  subject  to  objec- 
tion, and  attached  to  deposition,  and  marked  "  0.  H.  No.  8." 

Ques. — Look  at  the  paper  marked  "  F.  No.  11,  J.  A.  Monroe," 
and  say  in  whose  handwriting  it  is  ;  whether  you  are  the  person  to 
whom  it  is  addressed  ;  whether  you  received  it,  and  when. 

Ans. — My  answer  is  the  same  as  that  to  the  last  question. 


441 

(Paper  offered  in  evidence.  Objected  to.  Read  subject  to  excep- 
tion, attached  to  deposition,  and  marked  "  0.  H.  No.  8£." 

Ques. — Will  you  be  kind  enough  to  explain  what  Mr.  Forbes  refers 
to  in  speaking  of  information  acquired  by  "  us,"  with  regard  to  the 
title  of  Jose  Reyes  Berreyesa  ? 

Ans. — He  refers  to  the  existence  of  an  erasure  in  one  of  their 
titles. 

Ques. — In  what  manner  did  you  and  Mr.  Alexander  Forbes  obtain 
your  knowledge  of  this  fact  ? 

Ans. — We  saw  it. 

Ques. — When,  how,  and  under  what  circumstances  ? 

Ans. — We  saw  that  paper  at  the  house  of  the  Berreyesa's. 

Ques. — What  was  your  object  in  looking  into  their  titles  ? 

Ans. — The  object  was  to  run  certain  lines  between  the  mining  lands 
and  those  of  the  Berreyesa's.  Mr.  Alexander  Forbes  desired  to  see 
their  titles.     They  were  shown  to  him  and  me. 

Ques. — Why  did  he  desire  to  see  the  papers  ? 

Ans. — To  enable  him  to  run  a  line  between  his  lands  and  those  of 
the  Berreyesa's. 

Ques. — Was  there  a  survey  made  ? 

Ans. — There  was,  by  one  Chester  S.  Lyman. 

Ques — .What  was  the  date  of  that  survey  ? 

Ans. — I  think  in  January  and  February,  1848. 

Ques. — What  lands  were  surveyed  ? 

Ans. — A  tract  southwest  of  the  Rancho  of  San  Vicente,  embracing 
two  leagues  around  the  mine. 

Ques. — Under  what  title  or  grant,  if  any,  was  that  survey  made  ? 

Ans. — I  am  not  able  to  state. 

Ques. — Was  you  not  present  at  any  time  while  this  survey  was 
being  made,  and  did  you  see  Mr.  Alexander  Forbes  there  at  any 
time  ? 

Ans. — I  was  present,  and  I  saw  Mr.  Alexander  Forbes  there. 

Ques; — Did  you  then  see  any  grant  of  the  two  leagues  then  being 
surveyed  ? 

Ans. — I  did  not. 

Ques. — Had  you  ever  seen  any  such  grant  ? 

Ans. — I  had  not. 

Ques. — What  lands  then  were  to  be  separated  from  those  of  Berre- 


Ans. — Those  I  have  already  mentioned ;  two  leagues  of  ganado 
mayor  around  the  mining  possession. 

Ques. — Under  what  title,  or  by  what  right,  as  explained  to  you  at 
that  time,  were  those  two  leagues  to  be  surveyed  ? 

36 


442 

Ans. — The  order  for  the  survey  was  made  by  Mr.  Alexander 
Forbes. 

Ques. — Did  he  speak  of  no  right  or  title  under  which  he  ordered 
that  survey  to  be  made  ? 

Ans. — I  can't  exactly  remember  all  that  occurred  in  conversation. 
My  impression  is,  that  he  said  he  had  a  title  for  the  two  leagues,  or 
that  there  was  one  appertaining  to  Castillero.  I  am  uncertain  whether 
he  said  he  had  it  or  had  it  not.  He  never  showed  it  to  me..  My 
recollection  of  the  conversation  is,  that  Mr.  Forbes  stated  that  Cas- 
tillero had  relinquished  his  claim  to  $25,000  from  the  Mexican  gov- 
ernment, and  had  solicited  in  place  of  it  a  grant  for  the  two  sitios.  I 
desire  to  state  that  I  never  saw  any  grant  of  the  land  at  that  time. 

Ques. — From  what  passed  at  that  time,  was  the  impression  made 
upon  your  mind  that  Mr.  Alexander  Forbes  spoke  of  a  title  then  in 
existence,  or  one  thereafter  to  be  procured  ? 

Ans. — My  impression  was  that  he  spoke  of  it  as  already  existing. 

Ques. — When  did  you  become  satisfied  that  the  title  did  not  exist, 
and  that  it  was  necessary  to  procure  one  as  stated  in  your  memoran- 
dum at  Tepic  ? 

(Question  objected  to  and  withdrawn.) 

Ques. — When  did  you  become  satisfied  that  it  was  necessary  to 
procure  the  grant  described  in  the  memorandum  left  by  you  with  Mr. 
Forbes  at  Tepic,  and  dated  May  27,  1849  ? 

Ans. — I  did  not  exactly  become  satisfied  that  it  was  necessary  to 
procure  that  grant. 

Ques. — Can  you  not  answer  further  to  that  qusstion  ? 

Ans. — It  was  merely  suggested.  I  don't  know  that  I  ought  to 
answer.  I  will  state,  however,  that  from  the  time  Mr.  Alexander 
Forbes  was  in  California  I  was  apprehensive  that  there  was  something 
wrong  about  the  title  to  the  mine,  in  consequence  of  the  second  pos- 
session given  by  the  Alcalde  of  San  Jose*  in  1848.  As  regards  any 
measures  that  may  have  been  carried  out  at  my  suggestion,  I  am  in- 
norant  of  them ;  that  is,  I  am  ignorant  whether  any  such  measures 
were  carried  out  or  not. 

Ques. — Look  at  the  paper  now  shown  you  marked  "  F.  No.  24, 
J.  A.  Monroe,"  and  state  in  whose  handwriting  it  is  ;  also,  at  the 
memorandum  on  the  back,  and  say  in  whose  handwriting  it  is. 

Ans. — The  body,  signature  and  endorsement  are  in  my  handwi  iting. 
It  is  a  copy  of  a  letter  sent  by  me  at  the  date  it  purports  to  bear,  to 
Alexander  Forbes. 

(Letter  offered  in  evidence.  Objected  to.  Received  subject  to 
objection.     Attached  to  deposition,  and  marked  "  0.  H.  No.  9." 


443 

Ques. — Look  at  the  paper  now  shown  you,  marked  "  F.  No.  12, 
J.  A.  Monroe  ;"  say  in  whose  handwriting  it  is ;  whether  you  are  the 
person  to  whom  it  is  addressed,  and  when  you  received  it. 

Ans. — This  is  a  press  copy  of  a  letter  addressed  to  me  by  Barron, 
Forbes  &  Co.  ;  the  handwriting  of  the  body  I  do  not  know  ;  the  sig- 
nature is  that  of  Mr.  Wm.  Forbes.  It  was  received  by  me  in  due 
course  of  mail. 

(Letter  offered  in  evidence.  Objected  to.  Received  subject  to 
exception ;  attached  to  deposition,  and  marked  "  0.  H.  No.  10. " 

Ques. — Look  at  the  letter  marked  "  F.  No.  14,  J.  A.  Monroe," 
and  state  in  whose  handwriting  it  is ;  whether  received  by  you,  and 
when. 

Ans. — The  body  and  signature  is  in  the  handwriting  of  Mr.  Alex- 
ander Forbes.  I  am  certain  from  the  reference  made  to  the  cylinders 
that  it  must  have  been  sent  to  me  in  1850. 

(Paper  offered  in  e\idence.  Objected  to.  Received  subject  to 
objection ;  attached  to  deposition,  and  marked  "  0.  H.  No.  11.") 

Ques. — Look  at  the  four  papers  shown  you,  and  marked  "  F.  No.  13, 
J.  A.  Monroe  ;  "  "  F.  No.  15,  J.  A.  Monroe  ;  "  «  F.  No.  17,  J.  A. 
Monroe,"  and  UF.  No.  16},  J.  A.  Monroe,"  and  state  in  whose  hand- 
writing they  are,  and  when  received. 

Ans. — "  F.  No.  15-2 "  is  a  press  copy  of  the  letter  signed  by  me, 
and  addressed  to  Alexander  Forbes,  and  transmitted  at  the  time  of  its 
date.  The  rest  are  all  in  the  handwriting  of  Mr.  Alexander  Forbes, 
and  received  by  me  in  due  course  of  steamer. 

(Papers  offered  in  evidence.  Objected  to.  Received  subject  to 
objection  ;  attached  to  deposition  and  marked  "  0.  H.  No.  12," 
"  0.  H.  No.  13,"  "  0.  H.  No.  14,"  «  0.  H.  No.  15." 

Ques. — Look  at  the  papers  marked  "  F.  No.  1,  J.  A.  Monroe," 
"F.  No  2,"  J.  A.  Monroe,"  "  F.  No.  3,  J.  A.  Monroe,"  "  F.  No. 
4,  J.  A.  Monroe,"  now  shown  you,  and  say  in  whose  handwriting  they 
are,  and  whether  received  by  you  and  when. 

Ans. — They  are  all  in  the  handwriting  of  and  signed  by  Alexander 
Forbes.  They  were  transmitted  so  me  from  their  respective  places  of 
date,  and  received  by  me,  not  by  steamer,  but  by  other  conveyances : 
sailing  vessels,  &c. 

Ques. — Look  at  the  papers  now  shown  you,  marked  "  F.  No.  6, 
J.  A.  Monroe,"  and  state  in  whose  handwriting  it  is,  and  whether 
received  by  you,  and  when.     Also,  at  "  F.  No.  5,  J.  A.  Monroe  :" 


444 

also,  at  "  F.  No.  19,  J.  A.  Monroe ;"  also,  "  F.  No.  8,  J.  A.  Mon- 
roe." 

Ans.— "  F.  No.  6,"  "  F.  No.  5,"  and  "  F.  No.  19,"  are  in  the 
handwriting  of  and  signed  by  Mr.  Alexander  Forbes.  Also,  "  F.  No. 
8,  J.  A.  Monroe."  They  were  received  by  me  by  a  special  messen- 
ger from  the  mine  of  New  Almaden,  except  one,  which  was  received 
by  a  messenger  from  Monterey. 

Ques. — Look  at  the  paper  marked  "  F.  No.  19,  J.  A.  Monroe," 
and  answer  the  same  questions  with  regard  to  it. 

Ans. — "  F.  No.  19  "  is  in  the  handwriting  and  signed  by  Alexan- 
der Forbes.  It  was  received  by  me  by  a  special  messenger  from  the 
mine. 

Ques.— Look  at  "  F.  No.  25,  J.  A.  Monroe,"  "F.  No.  26,  J.  A. 
Monroe,"  and  "  F.  No.  27,  J.  A.  Monroe,"  and  answer  the  same 
questions  with  regard  to  them. 

Ans. — "  F.  No.  25  "  is  in  the  Spanish  language  ;  it  is  in  my  hand- 
writing. It  is  a  copy  of  a  petition  presented  by  Alexander  Forbes  to 
the  Alcalde  of  San  Jose,  at  the  time  it  bears  date,  Jan'y,  1848.  "  F. 
No.  26,"  is  a  sketch  explanatory  of  it,  also  in  my  handwriting.  The 
drawing  is  by  me.  "  F.  No.  27,"  is  a  list,  in  my  handwriting,  of  the 
documents  to  which  I  have  been  testifying. 

(All  the  above  documents  were  offered  in  evidence,  and  objected  to. 
Received  subject  to  exception,  attached  to  deposition,  and  marked 
"  0.  H.  No.  16,"  "  0.  H.  No.  17,"  "  0.  H.  No.  18,"  "  0.  H.  No. 
19,"  "  0.  H.  No.  20,"  0.  H.  No.  21,"  "  0.  H.  No.  22,"  "  0.  H. 
No.  23,"  "  0.  H.  No.  24,"  "  0.  H.  No.  25,"  0.  H.  No.  26." 

Ques. — Look  at  paper  marked  "  F.  No.  18,  J.  A.  Monroe,"  and 
state  by  whom  it  was  written,  and  when  received. 

Ans. — It  is  in  the  handwriting  of  Mr.  Wm.  E.  Barron :  the  signa- 
ture is  that  of  the  firm,  written  by  Mr.  William  Forbes.  It  was  re- 
ceived by  me  in  due  course  of  mail. 

(Offered  in  evidence.  Objected  to,  and  received  subject  to  excep- 
tion.    Attached  to  deposition  marked  "  0.  H.  No.  27.") 

JAS.  ALEX.  FORBES. 

Sworn  to  and  subscribed  before  me,  this  14th  day  of  December, 
1857. 

OGDEN  HOFFMAN. 

Examination  adjourned  until  Tuesday,  Dec.  15th,  at  11,  A.  M. 


445 

U.  S.  STATES  DISTRICT  COURT. 

In  Open  Court. 

Tuesday,  December  15th,  1857. 

Present  : — Ogden  Hoffman  ;  the  District  Attorney  and  Mr.  Ran- 
dolph for  the  U.  S.;  Mr.  Peachy  for  Claimant. 

Examination  of  James  Alexander  Forbes  Resumed. 

Certified  copy  of  Power  of  Attorney  to  James  Alexander  Forbes 
offered  in  evidence. 

(Objected  to.  Objection  sustained  ;  but  the  Court  allows  the  said 
copy  to  be  used  for  the  purposes  of  this  examination,  with  the  under- 
standing and  on  condition  that  the  original  will  be  produced  and  duly 
proved  at  a  subsequent  day,  and  if  the  same  is  not  so  produced,  then 
the  said  certified  copy  and  all  questions  relating  thereto,  are  received 
subject  to  all  legal  exceptions  as  to  the  admissability  or  effect  thereof. 
Marked  "0.  H.  No.  29,"  and  attached  to  deposition  of  James  Alexan- 
der Forbes.) 

Examination  Resumed. 

Ques. — Look  at  the  paper  now  shown  you,  marked  "  H.  L.  No.  6," 
filed  August  20,  1857,  in  this  case,  purporting  to  be  a  copy  of  power 
of  attorney  to  you  from  Alexander  Forbes,  certified  to  be  of  record  in 
Recorder's  office  of  Santa  Clara  county,  and  say  whether  that  is  a 
true  copy  of  a  power  of  attorney  received  by  you  from  him  at  Tepic. 

Ans. — I  believe  it  is  substantially  correct. 

Qus. — Did  you  cause  that  power  of  attorney  to  be  recorded  at  the 
Recorder's  office  of  Santa  Clara  ? 

Ans.— I  think  I. did. 

Ques. — Is  the  original  the  power  of  attorney  under  which  you  took 
charge  of  the  mine  of  New  Almaden  ? 

Ans. — It  is. 

Ques. — You  yesterday  testified  that  certain  papers  were  in  the 
handwriting  of  Mr.  Wm.  E.  Barron ;  what  are  your  means  of  know- 
ing his  handwriting  ? 

Ans. — I  have  had  correspondence  with  him  and  seen  him  write. 

Ques. — When  did  you  first  receive  possession  of  the  Mine  of  New 
Almaden,  and  from  whom  ? 

Ans. — I  received  possession  of  the  mine  in  1846,  from  the  represen- 
tative of  Castillero. 


446 

Ques. — What  was  his  name  ? 

Ans. — Jose  Maria  Real,  usually  known  as  Padre  Real,  of  the  Mis- 
sion of  Santa  Clara. 

Ques. — Of  what  did  he  give  you  the  possession  ? 

Ans. — Of  the  mine  itself,  the  hacienda,  the  mining  utensils  and  the 
ores  that  had  been  extracted  from  the  mine. 

Ques. — What  do  you  mean  by  the  mine  ?  Do  you  mean  the  spot 
only  where  the  ores  were  dug,  or  that  spot  with  a  definite  extent  of 
land  about  it ;  and  if  the  latter,  of  what  definite  extent  of  land  around 
the  mine  did  he  give  you  possession  ? 

Ans. — I  not  recollect  that  any  definite  extent  was  specified  other 
than  that  given  by  the  Alcalde.  It  was  understood  that  the  mine  con- 
tained three  pertenencias  at  that  time. 


(The  latter  part  of  this  answer  objected  to.) 


Ques. — By  "  pertenencias"  do  you  mean  the  quantity  of  land 
known  as  such  in  the  mining  ordinances  of  Mexico  ? 

Ans. — I  do. 

Ques. — Was  Padre  Real  at  that  time  interested  in  the  Mine  of 
New  Almaden,  as  well  as  the  representative  of  Andres  Castillero  ? 

Ans. — He  was. 

Ques. — Did  he  assign  any  reason  for  wishing  you  to  take  possession 
at  that  time  ?     Were  you  an  owner  in  the  mine  ? 

Ans. — He  was  desirous  that  the  mine  should  be  continued  to  be 
wrought,  and  I  was  negotiating  at  that  time  for  the  purchase  of  an  in- 
terest in  the  mine. 

Ques. — Did  he  assign  any  reason  for  selecting  you  as  a  proper  per- 
son to  take  charge  of  the  mine  at  that  time  ? 

Ans. — I  don't  recollect  that  he  did,  other  than  that  we  were  upon 
friendly  terms. 

Ques. — Was  it  not  understood  that  there  were  special  reasons  why 
you  should  be  the  person  to  have  charge  of  the  mine  ? 

Ans. — I  think  Padre  Real  manifested  a  desire  not  to  be  in  charge 
of  the  mine  owing  to  his  clerical  character,  and  the  difficulties  which 
were  about  taking  place  in  the  country. 

Ques. — Do  you  mean  the  conquest  by  the  Americans  ? 

Ans. — I  do. 

Ques. — Describe,  if  you  please,  in  what  condition  you  found  the 
mine  when  you  took  possession.  Was  it  then  being  wrought  ;  if  yea, 
by  how  many  laborers  ? 

Ans. — The  aperture  of  the  mine  was  an  adit  or  horizontal  entrance. 
The  pit  of  possession  or  "  poso  de  posesion,"  was  filled  with  debris  of 
the  upper  part  called  "  tepetate."  The  adit  was  about  20  or  25  feet 
in  length  through  the  rock.  The  ores  were  in  sight  on  either  side. 
There  was  a  planila  or  little  plateau  on  the  outside  formed  of  the  ma- 


447 

terial  taken  from  the  mine.  There  was  one  Mayordomo  in  charge, 
one  blacksmith,  and  two  or  three  Indians.  The  Mayor  domo  and 
blacksmith  resided  at  the  hacienda.  One  of  the  Indians  remained 
constantly  at  the  mine  and  slept  in  it.  They  were  not  at  that  time  ac- 
tively engaged  in  extracting  the  ores. 

(The  witness  desires  to  add  to  his  former  answer,  that  he  received 
about  2,000  pounds  of  quicksilver  at  the  time  he  received  possession 
of  the  mine.) 

Ques.     Where  did  the  other  Indians  stay  ? 

Ans.  I  don't  know.  They  wandered  about  there,  and  down  to  the 
Mission  of  Santa  Clara. 

Ques.  Had  you  visited  the  mine  at  any  time  during  the  preceding 
one,  two,  three  or  four  months  ;  if  yea,  had  you  found  laborers  en- 
gaged in  working  the  mine — if  so,  at  what  time  and  how  many  ? 

Ans.  I  had  visited  the  mine  about  one  month  previous.  The 
Mayordomo  was  there  ;  some  three  or  four  Indians  were  at  work  in- 
side the  mine  extracting  ores.     I  had  not  been  there  before  that  time. 

Ques.  Had  you  no  information  or  knowledge  as  to  whether  the 
mine  was  being  worked  two,  three,  or  four  months  previously  ? 

Ans.  Not  of  my  own  knowledge  ;  but  it  is  certain  that  it  had  been 
wrought,  for  the  quicksilver  which  I  received  had  been  extracted. 

Ques.  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  is  certain  that  the  mine  had  been 
wrought,  and  that  quicksilver  had  been  extracted  within  four  months 
next  preceding  the  time  when  you  took  possession  ? 

Ans.  I  cannot  state  at  what  time  that  quicksilver  was  extracted. 
I  hare  already  said  I  could  not  state  from  my  own  knowledge  at  what 
time  the  mine  was  being  wrought. 

Ques.  Did  you  not  learn  from  Padre  Real  at  what  time  that  quick- 
silver had  been  extracted  ? 

Ans.     I  do  not  recollect  that  I  did. 

Ques.  How  long  did  you  hold  possession  of  the  mine,  and  to  whom 
did  you  surrender  it. 

Ans.  I  can't  exactly  state.  Sometime  in  1847  I  delivered  it  to 
Mr.  Robert  Walkinshaw,  agent  of  Mr.  Alexander  Forbes. 

Ques.  Did  Padre  Real  deliver  to  you  the  possession  of  the  hacien- 
da ;  did  he  give  you  therewith  the  possession  of  any  definite  extent  of 
land  about  it,  and  how  far  is  it  from  the  mine  ? 

Ans.  When  he  gave  me  possession  of  the  mine,  the  hacienda  was 
comprised  in  it.     It  is  situated  about  a  mile  from  the  mine. 

Ques.  Do  you  know  of  any  mode  of  measuring  three  pertenencias 
about  that  mine  so  as  to  include  the  hacienda  ? 

Ans.     No,  sir. 


448 

Ques.  Will  you  answer  yes  or  no,  whether  he  gave  you  possession 
of  a  definite  tract  of  land  about  the  hacienda  ? 

Ans.  There  was  no  definite  tract  of  land  stated.  The  possession  of 
the  hacienda  was  comprised  in  that  of  the  mine. 

Ques.  When  you  delivered  possession  of  this  mine  and  hacienda 
to  Robert  Walkinshaw,  agent  of  Alexander  Forbes,  of  what  did  that 
possession  consist  ?  Did  you  deliver  possession  of  any  tract  around 
the  mine  and  hacienda,  or  either  of  them  ? 

Ans.  I  delivered  to  him  that  possession  which  I  had  received,  to- 
gether with  a  considerable  quantity  of  ore  which  I  had  extracted.  At 
the  hacienda  I  delivered  what  I  had  received,  together  with  some 
utensils  purchased  by  me.  I  did  not  deliver  to  him  possession  of  any 
definite  tract  about  the  mine  or  hacienda. 

Ques.  When  you  recovered  possession  of  the  mine  and  hacienda 
on  your  return  from  Tepic,  of  what  did  you  regain  possession  ? 

Ans.  I  did  not  state  that  I  recovered  possession  on  my  return  from 
Tepic  ;  I  said  I  received  it  by  virtue  of  a  power  of  attorney. 

Ques.  Of  what  did  you  receive  possession  on  your  return  from 
Tepic  ? 

Ans.  I  received  possession  of  the  mine,  a  large  quantity  of  cinna- 
bar ore,  and  of  the  hancienda,  comprising  all  the  works  erected  by 
Mr.  Walkinshaw. 

Ques.  Did  you  receive  possession  of  any  definite  tract  of  land 
about  the  mine  or  hacienda  at  that  time  ? 

Ans.     I  do  not  recollect  that  I  did. 

Ques.  Look  at  this  letter  marked  u  F.  No.  6,  J.  A.  Monroe,"  and 
tell  me  what  assays  are  spoken  of  in  that  letter  ? 

Ans.  As  far  as  my  recollection  serves  these  were  assays  made  at 
an  adit  vein  by  Mr.  Alexander  Forbes  at  a  place  not  in  the  true  course 
of  the  vein.     It  was  afterwards  called  "  capricio." 

Ques.  Was  that  assay  made  by  yourself ;  if  so,  what  was  the  yield 
there  spoken  as  "  surprising  ?" 

Ans.  I  made  several  assays  of  the  ores  from  New  Almaden  and 
San  Antonio.  They  were  made  with  a  gun  barrel.  Probably  the  sur- 
prise expressed  was  at  finding  those  ores  as  good  as  the  others,  which 
was  not  expected.  I  ought  to  add  that  it  was  Mr.  Forbes'  policy  to 
make  it  appear  that  there  was  no  large  deposit  of  quicksilver  there,  as 
is  usual  throughout  the  mining  dirtricts  of  Mexico.  I  mean  that  it 
was  his  policy  at  that  particular  time.  The  assays  were  made  with  a 
large  gun  barrel  with  the  muzzle  inserted  in  water. 

Ques.  What  was  the  largest  per  centage  of  quicksilver  you  re- 
member to  have  obtained  with  your  gun  barrel  from  the  ores  of  New 
Almaden  ? 

Ans.  As  far  as  my  recollection  serves,  at  that  time  about  26  per 
cent. 


449 

Ques.  Did  you  afterwards  obtain  a  greater  yield  ;  if  so,  when  and 
how  much  ? 

Ans.  I  did.  In  the  progress  of  the  operations  rich  ores  were  dis- 
covered, of  which  I  have  made  assays  which  produced  over  40  per 
cent.  It  is  to  be  understood  that  an  assay  made  in  the  manner  I  have 
stated  is  not  subject  to  the  same  loss  as  attends  the  reduction  of  ores 
on  a  larger  scale,  owing  to  the  evaporation. 

Ques.  Did  you  make  an  average  of  the  yield  of  the  best  ores  ;  if 
so,  what  was  it  ? 

Ans.  I  did  not  make  any  continuous  series  of  assays.  I  did  not 
make  any  average  of  the  best  assays. 

Ques.  When  you  took  possession  of  the  mine  what  constructions 
had  been  made  for  reducing  the  ores  ? 

Ans.  The  operations  had  been  conducted  on  a  small  scale  up  to 
that  time.  The  ores  had  been  confined  in  two  iron  pots,  the  one  in- 
verted over  the  other  with  an  aperture  for  the  escape  of  the  vapor  of 
mercury  which  was  condensed. 

Ques.  At  what  time  were  furnaces  for  the  reduction  of  ores  first 
erected  ? 

Ans.  I  erected  furnaces  at  the  hacienda  in  the  winter  of  1850. 
They  contained  iron  retorts. 

Ques.     How  many  were  there  ? 

Ans.  There  had  been  some  furnaces  .containing  these  iron  pots 
erected  in  1846.  The  pots  were  replaced  from  time  to  time  as  they 
were  decomposed  by  the  action  of  the  sulphur.  The  brick  furnaces  at 
present  in  use  were  erected  in  1850.  The  mayordomo  erected  the 
furnaces  with  iron  pots.  I  can't  say  whether  the  mayordomo  or  Cas- 
tillero  erected  them.  They  consisted  of  two  arches,  one  above  the 
other.  The  lower  received  the  ashes,  the  upper  the  wood.  On  the 
upper  the  pots  were  placed,  the  lower  received  the  ore  ;  the  upper 
was  inverted  over  it  with  a  luting  at  the  joint,  but  with  an  orifice  for 
the  escape  and  condensation  of  the  vapor.  They  were  built  of  adobe 
or  sun  driedbricks.  Mr.  Forbes,  in  1848,  erected  similar  fnrnaces  but 
a  little^  larger. 

Those  I  erected  in  1850  were  similar.  They  contained  each  two 
iron  retorts,  having  doors  on  the  one  side  and  apertures  on  the  other, 
connected  with  iron  condensers.     I  erected  two  of  these  in  1850. 

They  were  much  larger  than  the  previous  ones.  Each  retort  was 
charged  with  four  hundred  pounds  of  ore. 

Ques.  What  was  the  expediente  referred  to  in  the  first  paragraph 
of  the  letter  just  shown  you  ? 

Ans.  As  far  as  my  recollection  serves  me,  it  alludes  to  a  copy  of 
the  Berreyesa  title  which  had  been  procured  from  Monterey. 

Ques.     Who  had  procured  it,  and  for  what  purpose  ? 

Ans.  I  procured  it  to  ascertain  the  extent  of  land  comprised  in 
their  grant. 


450 

Ques.  At  what  time  did  you  purchase  an  interest  in  the  Almaden 
mine,  and  from  whom  ? 

Ans.  About  the  time  I  took  charge  in  1846  I  purchased  from  Jose* 
Teodoro  Robles  and  Secundino  Robles,  partners  of  Andres  Castillero 
in  the  mine.  The  deed  was  not  put  on  record  until  some  time  after- 
wards ;  in  fact,  it  was  not  made  out.  In  reality  the  purchase  was 
made  at  that  time. 

Ques.     Where  is  the  deed  ? 

Ans.     I  do  not  know.     It  is  on  record  in  Santa  Clara  county. 

Ques.  Where  is  the  original  ?  Can't  you  recollect  whether  you 
delivered  it  to  your  vendees  or  not  ? 

(A  deed  from  Don  Secundino  Robles  and  Don  Teodoro  Robles  to 
James  Alexander  Forbes  produced.  Admitted  to  be  the  original  deed 
in  handwriting  of  witness.  Certified  copy  filed  in  lieu  of  the  original 
by  consent  of  both  parties.  Copy  marked  "  0.  H.  No.  28,"  and  at- 
tached to  deposition.) 

Ques.  At  the  time  you  made  this  purchase  did  you  ask  of  the 
Messrs.  Robles  or  Padre  Real  to  see  the  title  under  which  they  held 
this  property  ? 

Ans.  They  exhibited  to  me  a  copy  of  the  contract  with  the  Com- 
pany for  the  working  of  the  mine,  which  I  retained.  I  don't  recollect 
that  any  other  document  was  shown  me.  I  asked  them  for  their  evi- 
dences of  title. 

Ques.  Do  you  mean  the  contract  between  Andres  Castillero,  Gen. 
Castro,  the  two  Robles  and  Father  Real,  made  in  1845  ? 

Ans.     I  do.     I  think  it  was  made  in  November,  1845. 

Ques.  Did  they  exhibit  to  you  any  other  title  or  writing  what- 
ever? 

Ans.     I  do  not  recollect  that  they  did. 

Ques.  Did  you  at  that  time  see,  or  had  you  at  any  time  previously 
seen,  any  concession  by  any  Alcalde  of  3000  varas  in  all  directions 
from  the  mine,  or  any  grant  of  two  sitios  of  "  ganado  mayor." 

Ans.     1  had  not. 

Ques.  Had  you  seen  any  such  papers  at  the  time  you  took  your 
deed  in  1847  ? 

Ans.  I  had  not  seen  any  grant  of  the  two  sitios.  As  to  the  con- 
cession of  3000  varas,  I  am  uncertain.  I  should  not  like  to  state 
whether  I  had  or  had  not.     I  saw  it  subsequently. 

Ques,  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  at  the  time  you  took  a  deed  of  two 
barras  in  three  pertenencias,  so  carefully  drawn,  that  you  are  not  cer- 
tain whether  you  had  or  had  not  seen  a  concession  of  3000  varas  in 
all  directions  to  your  grantors  and  their  associates,  or  to  the  persons 
from  whom  they  derived  title,  and  which  concession,  if  calculated  as  a 


451 

circle,  will  give  more  than  700  pertenencias  of  the  largest  class,  and 
if  calculated  as  a  square  will  give  just  900  of  said  pertenencias  ? 

Ans.  I  mean  to  say  that  in  that  transaction  I  was  guided  by  the 
contract  of  company  of  Castillero  and  his  associates,  and  by  the  noto- 
rious fact  of  his  having  received  a  possession.  I  made  out  the  deed 
according  to  the  usual  formula  of  Mexican  documents.  With  regard 
to  the  pertenencias,  the  gentleman  is  mistaken,  unless  the  extent  be 
calculated  from  the  mouth  of  the  mine  as  a  centre.  I  do  mean  to 
state  that  I  am  uncertain  whether  or  not  I  saw  at  that  time  the  con- 
cession alluded  to. 

Ques.  Look  at  the  paper  now  shown  you,  marked  "Ano  de  1845. 
"  Espediente  del  denuncio  posesion  y  compania  de  la  mina  de  Azogue 
"  nombrada  Santa  Clara  jurisdiccion  de  San  Jose'  Guadalupe  en  la  Alta 
"  California,"  being  the  original  of  Exhibit  uA,"to  Claimant's  petition 
in  this  cause,  and  of  which  a  certified  traced  copy  is  on  file  in  this 
cause — except  that  part  following  the  signature  of  James  W.  Weekes, 
Alcalde  ;  say  in  whose  handwriting  is  the  body  and  the  certificate  next 
immediately  following  the  signature  of  James  W.  Weekes,  signed  James 
Alexander  Forbes,  and  in  whose  handwriting  is  the  endorsement  in 
Spanish  already  read  to  you. 

Ans.  The  body  of  the  instrument  is  in  my  handwriting  ;  the  cer- 
tificate of  Weekes  is  in  my  handwriting  ;  the  signature  is  his.  The  cer- 
tificate signed  by  me  is  in  my  handwriting,  and  the  signature  is  mine. 
The  endorsement  or  superscription  on  the  first  leaf  in  Spanish  is  in  my 
handwriting. 

Ques.  At  what  time  did  you  write  this ;  was  it  at  the  date  of  the 
certificate  ? 

Ans.  I  made  that  copy  in  January,  1848, 1  presume  on  the  same 
day  it  is  dated. 

Ques.     Where  were  you  when  you  made  it  ? 

Ans.  I  cannot  state  positively,  but  it  strikes  me  I  was  at  the  mine 
of  Almaden. 

Ques.     Where  did  you  get  the  originals  from  which  it  was  made  ? 

Ans.  I  got  them  from  Alexander  Forbes  to  the  best  of  my  recol- 
lection. He  handed  them  to  me  and  requested  me  to  make  a  copy.  He 
procured  them,  I  believe,  from  the  Alcalde. 

Ques.  What  did  you  do  with  the  originals  after  you  had  made  the 
copy? 

Ans.  I  can't  say  whether  I  handed  them  to  Mr.  Forbes  or  the 
Alcalde.  He  was  at  the  mine  at  the  time  ;  his  name  was  James  W. 
Weekes. 

Ques.     Did  you  give  them  to  either  ? 

Ans.     Yes  ;  I  handed  them  to  one  or  the  other  of  those  persons. 

Ques.  Had  you  ever  seen  the  papers  from  which  the  copy  was 
made  before  that  time  ? 


452 

Ans.     According  to  the  best  of  my  recollection  I  had  not. 

Ques.     Did  you  ever  see  them  after  that  time  ? 

Ans.     I  think  I  did. 

Ques.     When  and  where  ? 

Ans.  I  sought  for  them  in  the  office  of  the  County  Recorder  of 
Santa  Clara,  I  think  in  1853,  and  I  found  an  espediente  which  I  pre- 
sumed was  the  same. 

Ques.  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  this  paper  shown  you  was  copied 
from  the  paper  you  found  in  the  Recorder's  office  in  1853  ? 

Ans.     I  am  unable  to  state  without  a  comparison. 

Ques.  Where  did  you  obtain  these  words,  (the  superscription  in 
Spanish)  ? 

Ans.     I  presume  it  is  a  copy  of  the  original. 

Ques.  Where  did  you  get  the  words  on  the  first  page,  "  Es  copia 
a  la  que  me  remito  firmandola  con  dos  testigos  de  asistencia  en  el 
Pueblo  de  San  Jose*  de  Guadalupe  a  13  de  Enero  de  1846.  Pedro 
Chabolla,  de  asistencia  P.  Sainsevain  de  assistncia.  Jose'  Sunol  ?" 

Ans.  I  do  not  know.  I  have  already  said  I  copied  the  paper 
handed  to  me.  I  presume  from  seeing  them  in  the  copy  that  they 
were  in  the  original. 

Ques.  Look  at  the  same  words  signed  to  the  second  petition,  and 
say  where  you  got  them  ? 

Ans.     I  make  the  same  answer  as  that  to  the  last  question. 

Ques.  Look  at  the  receipt  for  $ 25,  signed  Antonio  Maria  Pico, 
and  say  where  you  got  those  words. 

Ans.     I  make  the  same  answer  as  before. 

Ques.  Look  at  the  last  instrument,  purporting  to  be  a  copy  of  ar- 
ticles of  partnership  between  Castillero,  Robles  &c,  and  say  where 
you  gob  the  original  of  that  particular  paper. 

Ans.  As  far  as  my  recollection  goes,  it  must  have  been  handed  to 
me  with  the  other  documents  by  Mr.  Alexander  Forbes,  or  the  Al- 
calde. 

Ques.  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  each  and  every  of  the  writings  as 
to  which  I  have  just  interrogated  you,  constituted  a  part  of  the  origi- 
nal expediente  of  the  mine,  copied  by  you  and  certified  to  by  Weekes  ? 

Ans.  My  answer  is  that  those  copies  were  made  by  me  from  docu- 
ments presented  to  me  as  before  stated. 

Ques.  When  you  made  this  copy  at  the  mine  who  else  was  pre- 
sent ? 

Ans.  I  have  not  positively  said  that  it  was  made  at  the  mine.  If 
it  was,  Mr.  Walkinshaw  was  present,  besides  Mr.  Alexander  Forbes. 

Ques.     Was  not  Antonio  Maria  Pico  there  ? 

Ans.     I  cannot  state  positively  whether  he  was  there  on  that  day. 

Ques.  Was  he  not  there  on  the  19th,  20th  or  21st  of  January  of 
that  year  ? 


453 

Ans.  He  was  there  with  the  Alcalde  Weekes,  but  I  am  not  certain 
on  what  day. 

Ques.  Was  it  not  when  the  Alcalde  Weeks  was  there,  and  on  the 
occasion  when  he  gave  possession  of  four  pertenencias  that  he  signed 
the  certificates  just  shown  you  ? 

Ans.  I  cannot  state  positively  whether  Weekes  signed  the  certificate 
on  that  occasion,  or  at  his  office. 

Ques.  Was  not  the  possession  given  and  the  certificate  signed  on 
or  about  the  same  day  ? 

Ans.  I  think  it  was  ;  but  I  am  uncertain  whether  it  was  signed  at 
the  mine  or  his  own  office.  I  am  certain  I  certified  to  it  at  my  own 
residence. 

Ques.  Look  at  the  paper  marked  by  the  Court  "  0.  H.  No.  24," 
and  say  whether  this  is  the  petition  on  which  the  Alcalde  Weeks  gave 
the  possession  of  the  pertenencias  on  or  about  the  same  day  as  you 
have  testified  that  he  signed  the  certificate  to  the  copy  of  the  expe- 
diente. 

Ans.  I  think  this  document  is  a  copy  of  the  petition  presented  to 
the  Alcalde  on  that  occasion,  but  am  not  able  to  swear  that  it  is. 

Ques.  Will  you  now  explain  what  you  meant  in  that  petition  by 
what  is  said  about  the  increase  of  pertenencias  and  the  correction  of 
boundaries  ? 

(Objected  to ;  taken  subject  to  objection.) 

Ans.  I  am  unable  to  state.  I  made  out  this  document  at  the  com- 
mand or  by  the  direction  of  another  party. 

Ques.     Who  was  that  other  party  ? 

Ans.     Mr.  Alexander  Forbes. 

Ques.  Who  asked  you  to  make  the  copy  of  the  Espediente — the 
Alcalde  or  Mr.  Forbes  ? 

Ans.     Mr.  Alexander  Forbes. 

JAS.  ALEX.  FORBES. 

Subscribed  before  me  this  15  Dec,  1857. 

OGDEN  HOFFMAN, 

Dist.  Judge. 
Examination  adjourned  until  Wednesday,  Dec.  16,  at  11  A.  M. 


UNITED  STATES  DISTRICT  COURT. 

Present  :  Ogden  Hoffman,  Judge  ;  counsel  for  the  United  States 
and  for  Claimants. 


454 

Examination  of  James  Alexander  Forbes,  resumed. 

Wednesday,  December  17, 1857. 

Question. — When  Alexander- Forbes  arrived  in  Monterey  in  1847, 
how  old  was  he  ? 

Ans. — I  should  think  about  72  years  of  age. 

Ques. — Look  at  the  paper  now  shown  you,  superscribed  on  1st  leaf 
"  Posesion  de  la  mina  de  Santa  Clara.  Ano  de  1845,"  being  paper 
produced  by  S.  0.  Houghton,  (admitted  to  be  the  same  found  by  wit- 
ness in  1853  in  Recorder's  Office  as  testified  by  him,)  and  say  whether 
or  not  this  is  the  paper  from  which  you  made  the  copy  endorsed  "  Es- 
pediente  de  la  Mina"  &c,  as  to  which  you  testified  yesterday  ? 

Ans. — 1  cannot  state  unless  I  am  allowed  to  compare  them. 

(The  witness  compares  the  documents.) 

I  think  it  is  not. 

Ques. — If  this  is  not  the  original  from  which  the  copy  was  made 
can  you  now  answer  whether  or  not  you  have  ever  seen  the  original 
since  the  time  you  made  the  copy  ? 

Ans. — I  do  not  recollect  that  I  have. 

Ques. — Did  you  ever  see  that  paper  "  Posesion  de  la  Mina  "  &c, 
at  any  time  before  you  made  that  copy  ? 

Ans. — I  do  not  recollect  that  I  did. 

Ques. — Did  you  ever  see  it  any  time  before  you  discovered  it  in 
the  Recorder's  office  in  1853. 

Ans. — I  cannot  state  with  certainty  whether  I  did  or  not. 

Ques. — Look  at  the  letter  marked  "  F.  No.  24,  J.  A  Monroe,  0. 
H.  No.  9,"  in  which  you  say  that  Castillero  succeeded  in  obtaining  a 
grant  of  two  sitios  on  his  mining  possession.  Which  of  the  three 
mining  possessions  do  you  allude  to  therein ;  the  one  for  three  per- 
tenencias  which  you  have  said  was  understood  to  exist  at  the  time  you 
bargained  with  the  Robles  for  the  two  barras  ;  the  one  of  which  you 
made  the  copy  certified  to  by  Weekes  January  20,  1848,  being  for 
3000  varas  in  all  directions  from  the  mine  ;  or  that  one  given  by  the 
said  Weekes  of  the  same  date  with  the  said  certificate  of  Weekes,  and 
which  is  for  four  pertenencias  ? 

Ans. — I  allude  to  the  posession  given  to  Castillero  by  the  local  au- 
thorities of  San  Jose  in  1845.  It  must  have  been  the  one  I  under- 
stood to  exist  at  the  time  I  bargained  with  the  Robles,  and  which  I 
understood  to  consist  of  three  pertenencias. 

Ques. — Have  you  ever  seen  the  act  of  concession  of  the  said  three 
pertenencias  ? 

Ans. — I  have  not. 


455 

Ques. — Do  you  know  what  are  the  terms  of  said  concession  of  three 
pertenencias  ? 

Ans. — Not  having  seen  it,  it  is  impossible  for  me  to  state  its  terms. 

Ques.— Look  at  the  letter  marked  "  0.  H.  No.  4." 

Which  of  these  possessions  do  you  allude  to  by  the  terms  "  precar- 
ious and  illegal  possession  of  the  mine,"  &c,  which  of  the  three  pos- 
sessions just  referred  to  ? 

Ans. — I  allude  to  the  possession  of  3000  varas.  The  terms  u  pre- 
carious and  illegal "  refer  to  the  mining  ordinances  which  prescribe  a 
quantity  less  than  that,  as  the  extent  of  a  mining  possession. 

Ques. — Then  sir,  are  you  not  in  error  when  you  said  that  your  allu- 
sion in  letter  "  0.  H.  No.  9,"  was  to  the  possession  of  the  three  per- 
tenencias which  you  had  never  seen.  Do  not  both  letters  allude  to 
the  same  thing  ? 

Ans. — I  think  I  am  not  in  error ;  although  I  said  I  had  not  seen 
that  possession,  I  still  alluded  to  the  first,  whatever  it  may  have  been, 
and  having  seen  the  act  of  possession  in  1848,  my  observations  in  the 
last  letter  refer  to  that. 

Ques. — Not  having  seen  the  concession  of  three  pertenencias  which 
you  said  was  supposed  to  exist  when  you  bargained  with  the  Robles", 
and  therefore  being  unable  to  say  in  what  terms  it  was  expressed,  how 
could  you  in  this  letter  "  0.  H.  No.  9,"  have  referred  to  that  conces- 
sion, when  you  use  these  words,  u  that  very  act  of  possession  declares 
"  that  the  mine  is  situated  on  the  lands  of  one  Jose'  Reyes  Berreyesa, 
"  five  leagues  distant  from  Santa  Clara." 

Ans. — I  did  not  say  that  I  alluded  in  this  letter  to  an  act  of  posses- 
sion of  three  pertenencias.  I  said  I  alluded  to  the  first  act  of  posses- 
sion given. 

(The  former  answer  of  the  witness  is  read  to  him  by  request  of 
counsel.) 

He  desires  to  explain : 

With  regard  to  the  three  pertenencias,  I  alluded  to  what  was  under- 
stood to  have  been  given  immediately  around  the  mine,  which  was  con- 
sidered to  constitute  three  pertenencias  of  the  mine  but  not  of  the 
Hacienda  or  other  lands  adjacent  thereto. 

Ques. — I  now  repeat  my  question  ;  how  is  it  that  never  having  seen 
that  act  of  concession,  and  being  therefore  ignorant  of  its  terms,  you 
could  use  the  language  referred  to  in  letter  "  0.  H.  No.  9  ? " 

Ans. — If  I  have  inadvertently  answered  that  in  that  letter  I  allude 
to  a  possession  of  three  pertenencias,  I  now  state  that  I  allude  to  the 
act  of  possession  copied  by  me  in  1848. 

There  was   only  one  act  of  possession  which  I  understood  to  have 


456 

been  given.  This  embraced  three  pertenencias,  so  far  as  regarded 
the  mine.  Three  pertenencias,  and  also  lands  about  the  Hacienda,  I 
understood  to  have  been  given  to  Castillero  in  1845. 

Ques. — How  much  land  do  you  mean  to  say  was  granted  about  the 
Hacienda  ? 

Ans. — I  understood  there  were  3000  varas. 

Ques. — When  do  you  mean  to  say  you  understood  this  ? 

Ans. — I  think  I  learnt  this  about  the  time  I  received  possession 
from  Real.     I  am  not  certain,  it  may  have  been  subsequently. 

Ques. — When  you  bargained  and  bought  of  the  Robles  two  of  their 
four  "  barras  "  did  you  not  obtain  from  them  the  half  of  all  their  in- 
terest in  the  mine  and  its  appurtenances  ? 

Ans. — I  did. 

Ques. — How  is  it  then  that  your  deed  drafted  by  yourself  expressed 
only  two  of  their  barras  in  each  of  the  three  pertenencias  of  that 
mine  ? 

Ans. — Quite  correct.  I  purchased  two  barras,  and  as  a  matter  of 
course  the  deed  expressed  according  to  mining  custom  all  the  perten- 
encias supposed  to  be  comprised  in  a  mine. 

Ques. — How  is  it  then  that  there  was  no  allusion  to  their  interest  in 
the  tract  of  3000  varas  around  the  Hacienda,  which  is  one  mile  from 
the  mine  ? 

Ans. — The  terms  of  the  deed  of  sale  comprise  every  thing ;  all 
their  right,  title  and  interest  to  lands  and  mine. 

Ques. — Show  what  words  in  that  instrument  convey  an  interest  in 
the  3000  vara  tract  around  the  Hacienda  ? 

Ans. — It  is  that  clause  which  commences  "  all  their  rights  and 
"  shares  in  each  one  of  the  three  pertenencias,"  &c. 

By  Mexican  custom  a  sale  of  barras  in  a  mine  includes  an  interest 
in  the  Hacienda. 

Ques. — On  yesterday,  after  reading  letter  "  O.  H.  No.  20,  (F.  No. 
6,")  now  again  shown  you,  dated  January  19th,  1848,  you  said  it 
was  at  that  time  the  policy  of  Mr.  Alexander  Forbes  to  conceal  the 
character  and  quality  of  the  mine.     What  did  you  mean  by  that  ? 

Ans. — I  meant  to  say  it  was  his  policy  to  conceal  from  certain  par- 
ties already  interested,  and  from  others  desirous  of  being  interested, 
the  yield  of  the  mine,  in  order  to  induce  the  former  to  sell  out  and  to 
deter  others  from  purchasing. 

Ques. — Which  of  the  partners  had  he  reference  to  at  that  time  ? 

Ans. — I  represented  two  shares  of  the  Robles.  Padre  Real  was 
one  of  the  original  company.  He  desired  them  to  conceal  it  from 
Padre  Real  and  from  me  as  the  representative  of  the  Robles  shares. 

Ques. — When  Alexander  Forbes  arrived  in  1847  and  during  his 
visit  did  he  manifest  much  jealousy  about  that  mine  towards  you, 
Father  Real  and  the  neighbors  ? 


457 

Ans. — Only  in  so  far  as  I  have  stated. 

Ques. — You  have  said  that  Mr.  Forbes  caused  a  survey  of  lands  to 
be  made  about  the  mine  ;  was  not  that  survey  made  after  the  date  of 
your  copy  of  the  "  Expediente  de  la  Mina,"  &c,  certified  by  Weekes, 
Alcalde,  and  after  the  concession  of  four  pertenencias  by  said  Weekes  ? 

Ans. — I  cannot  state  from  recollection  whether  it  was  or  was  not. 

I  do  not  recollect  how  long  Mr,  Lyman  was  there.  I  cannot  state 
when  he  commenced  or  finished.  It  was  about  January  or  February 
1848.     He  may  have  commenced  in  December. 

Ques. — Do  you  know  why  it  was  that  he  did  not  follow  the  calls  of 
the  concession  of  3000  varas  in  all  directions  around  the  mine  ? 

(Objected  to  as  assuming  a  fact  not  proved.) 

Ans. — I  don't  know.  I  know  very  little  about  it.  I  was  there  very 
seldom. 

Ques. — You  have  said  that  one  object  of  this  survey  was  to  separate 
the  lands  of  the  mine  from  those  of  Jose'  Reyes  Berreyesa.  Did  you 
suppose  that  you  could. settle  the  limits  of  Berreyesa  by  any  survey 
of  your  own  ? 

Ans. — I  did  not  take  upon  myself  to  determine  anything  in  the 
matter.     I  did  not  order  the  survey. 

Ques. — How  then  were  you  able  to  say  that  one  object  of  the  sur- 
vey was  to  separate  the  lands  of  the  mine  from  those  of  Berreyesa  ? 

Ans. — Because  I  was  so  informed  by  Mr.  Alexander  Forbes. 

Ques. — Did  he  not  then  also  inform  you  how  it  was  that  any  survey 
of  his  was  to  affect  the  boundaries  of  another  man's  land  ? 

Ans. — He  did  not. 

Ques. — Were  the  Berreyesas  called  upon  to  be  present  at  this 
survey  ? 

Ans. — The  principal  representative  of  the  family  were  viz,  the  widow 
and  two  of  her  sons. 

Ques. — What  part  did  they  take  in  the  matter  ? 

Ans.— They  pointed  out  certain  limits,  or  a  certain  line  to  the  S. W. 
of  their  house,  as  their  boundary  in  that  direction.  This  was  done  at 
the  house,  in  the  presence  of  Mr.  Forbes,  Mr.  Lyman,  and  myself, 
who  interpreted  to  Mr.  Lyman. 

Ques. — Did  the  surveyor  set  up  any  land-marks  on  those  limits  ;  if 
so,  what  ? 

Ans. — I  afterwards  saw  two  flags  on  that  line,  which  I  learnt  had 
been  set  up  by  Mr.  Lyman. 

Ques. — Were  there  no  heaps  of  stones  or  other  permanent  monu- 
ments set  up  ? 

Ans. — There  may  have  boen  ;  I  don't  recollect  now. 

37 


458 

Ques. — When  you  took  possession  of  the  mine  in  1846,  how  many 
entrances  had  been  made  into  the  hill  ? 

Ans. — One. 

Ques. — You  have  mentioned  the  "  poso  de  posesion,"  and  another 
entrance,  which  had  gone  in  about  twenty-five  feet;  was  there  not  also 
a  cave  there  ? 

Ans. — I  have  mentioned  but  one  aperture  to  the  mine,  on  the  left 
of  which  was  the  "  poso  de  posesion."  The  cavity  was  originally 
natural,  but  that  to  which  I  testified  yesterday  had  been  excavated 
by  the  operators  under  Castillero,  and  this  I  alluded  to  as  about  25 
feet  long. 

Ans. — Was  there  not  a  cave  there  before  1845,  where  the  Indians 
had  been  in  the  habit  of  resorting  ? 

Ans. — For  many  years  previous  to  that  date  it  was  known  that  such 
a  cave  did  exist,  and  was  considered  to  contain  some  mineral,  the  nature 
of  which  was  not  known  until  discovered  by  Castillero.  The  Indians 
were  accustomed  to  use  the  ore  for  paint.  I  obtained  this  informa- 
tion from  old  Indians  myself. 

Ques. — Then  in  1846  were  there  three  apertures,  the  poso,  the 
adit,  and  the  cave — or  was  the  adit  through  the  cave  ? 

Ans. — There  was  an  artificial  enlargement  at  the  mouth  of  the 
cave.  The  poso  was  visible,  but  filled  up  to  within  a  foot  or  two  of 
the  surface  with  debris,  it  was  very  near  the  mouth.  The  cave  ex- 
tended beyond  the  poso  ;  the  aperture  had  been  enlarged  artificially. 
The  adit  had  been  pushed  some  twenty-five  or  thirty  feet  from  the 
mouth.     The  poso  was  on  the  left  near  the  entrance. 

Ques. — How  deep  was  the  cave  before  it  was  extended  as  you  have 
described  ? 

Ans. — I  am  unable  to  state.     I  had  never  been  there. 

Ques. — Then  the  depth  of  twenty-five  feet  or  thereabouts,  was  the 
original  length  of  the  cave,  with  the  addition  of  the  artificial  exten- 
sion ? 

Ans. — It  was. 

Ques. — After  Mr.  Walkinshaw  took  possession  of  this  mine  as  agent 
for  Mr.  Alexander  Forbes,  and  up  to  the  year  1850,  have  you  heard 
him  make  any  declaration  with  respect  to  the  title  to  the  mine  ? 

(Objected  to.     Taken  subject  to  objection.) 

Ans. — Subsequently  to  his  becoming  an  owner  he  made  no  decla- 
rations with  regard  to  the  title  to  the  mine. 

(Direct  examination  rested.) 


459 

Cross-Examination  by  Mr.   Peachy,  Counsel  for  Claimants. 

Ques. — Do  the  letters  concerning  which  you  have  testified,  and  which 
have  been  offered  in  evidence,  contain  all  the  correspondence  between 
you  and  Mr.  Alexander  Forbes,  or  with  Barron,  Forbes  &  Co.,  with 
reference  to  the  mine  ? 

Ans. — I  believe  they  contain  all  the  private  correspondence  I  had 
with  those  gentlemen. 

Ques. — What  do  you  mean  by  private  correspondence  ? 

Ans— I  mean  letters  alluding  to  matters  I  considered  private. 

Ques. — Are  these  all  the  letters  you  showed  Mr.  Laurencel  ? 

Ans. — They  are. 

Ques. — When  did  you  first  hear  of  the  discovery  of  the  mine  of 
New  Almaden  by  Andres  Castillero  ? 

Ans.^-In  November  1845,  or  December,  I  am  not  certain. 

Ques. — You  have  stated  that  it  was  notorious  in  1846,  that  he  had 
received  possession  of  the  mine.  How  long  before  that  had  you 
known  that  he  had  received  possession  of  the  mine  ? 

Ans. — I  had  known  it  about  8  months  ;  7  or  8  months  before  1846, 
when  I  bargained  with  the  Robles. 

Ques. — When  did  you  first  learn  of  a  grant  of  two  leagues  made 
to  Castillero  on  this  mining  possession  by  the  Mexican  Gov't  ? 

Ans. — I  do  not  exactly  recollect ;  I  think  it  was  in  1848. 

Ques. —Look  at  the  letter  now  shown  you;  state  in  whose  hand- 
writing it  is. 

Ans. — It  is  in  my  hand-writing.  The  endorsement  is  in  the  hand- 
writing of  Alexander  Forbes.  I  sent  it  to  Mr.  Eustace  Barron,  Sr., 
at  or  about  the  date.     It  was  written  on  that  day. 

(Paper  produced  offered  in  evidence.     Marked"  0.  II.  X.  No.  1." 
Objected  to.) 

Ques. — Look  at  the  paper  now  shown  you  and  state  in  whose  hand- 
writing it  is. 

Ans.— It  is  in  my  hand-writing,  and  signed  by  me.  It  was  written 
at  the  time  it  bears  date,  and  sent  by  me.  The  endorsement  is  in  the 
handwriting  of  Alexander  Forbes. 

(Letter  offered  in  evidence.  Objected  to.  Taken  subject  to  ob- 
jection.    Attached  to  deposition  and  marked"  0.  H.  X.  No.  2.") 

Ques. — Look  at  the  letter  now  shown  you,  and  state  in  whose  hand- 
writing it  is. 

(The  witness  desires  to  say  in  explanation  of  his  previous  answer, 


460 

that  the  correspondence  which  he  stated  to  contain  all  his  private  cor- 
respondence with  Alexander  Forbes,  and  with  Barron,  Forbes  &  Co., 
contains  all  his  private  correspondence  when  he  was  in  charge  of  the 
mine,  or  at  and  about  that  period.  That  he  makes  this  explanation 
injustice  to  himself,  as  some  of  the  letters  just  shown  him  are  marked 
private.) 

Ans. — It  is  in  my  hand-writing,  and  signed  by  me  ;  it  was  written 
at  its  date,  and  sent  to  Mr.  Alexander  Forbes  about  that  time. 

(Objected  to.  Read  subject  to  objection,  and  attached  to  deposition, 
marked  "  0.  H.  X.  No.  3.") 

Ques. — Look  at  the  paper  now  shown  you,  and  answer  as  before. 

Ans. — It  is  in  my  hand-writing  and  signed  by  me.  It  was  written 
at  its  date,  sent  to  Mr.  Alexander  Forbes,  and  the  endorsement  is  in 
his  hand-writing. 

(Objected  to.  Received  subject  to  objection.  Attached  to  depo- 
sition and  marked  "  0.  H.  X.  No.  4.") 

Ques. — Look  at  the  paper  now  shown  you  and  answer  as  before. 

Ans. — The  hand-writing  is  that  of  Win.  E.  Barron,  now  in  Court. 
Signed  by  Barron,  Forbes  &  Co.  The  signature  is  written  by  Wm. 
Forbes  ;  it  is  addressed  to  me  ;  it  was  received  by  me,  I  presume  by 
due  course  of  post.  The  endorsement  is  in  my  handwriting.  The 
address  is  in  the  hand-writing  of  Wm.  E.  Barron. 

(Letter  offered.  Received  subject  to  objection.  Marked  "  O.  H. 
X.  No.  5.") 

Ques. — Did  you  hand  over  to  Mr.  De  La  Torre  any  documents  and 
letters  in  your  possession  ? 

Ans. — I  wrote  a  letter  to  him  at  the  time  I  transferred  the  posses- 
sion of  the  same  to  him,  specifying  the  letters  transmitted  to  him.  I 
handed  over  to  him  all  the  letters  and  documents  of  a  public  nature 
connected  with  the  mine.     I  presume  this  was  one  of  them. 

Ques. — Look  at  the  letter  now  shown  you,  and  answer  as  before. 

Ans. — The  body  and  the  signature  are  in  my  handwriting.  It  is 
the  letter  I  have  just  alluded  to;  it  was  sent  to  Mr.  De  La  Torre  with 
the  documents  and  letters  therein  mentioned,  at  the  time  I  transferred 
the  posession  to  him. 

(Letter  offered  in  evidence.  Objected  to.  Received  subject  to 
exception.     Marked  «  0.  H.  X.  No.  6.") 


461 

(The  Court  advises  the  Counsel  on  both  sides,  that  objections  to  the 
admissibility  of  all  papers  heretofore  offered,  or  hereafter  to  be  offered 
in  evidence,  need  not  now  be  stated,  except  such  as  are  formal  and 
might  be  removed  if  mentioned.  And  that  both  sides  will  be  at 
liberty  to  urge  at  the  final  hearing  all  objections  to  the  admissibility 
and  competency  of  said  papers,  except  those  above  mentioned,  with 
the  same  effect  as  if  the  same  were  now  particularly  specified.) 

(The  Counsel  for  U.  S.  call  upon  Claimants  to  produce  all  the  docu- 
ments referred  to  in  the  last  letter  exhibited  to  witness,  and  give 
notice  that  if  the  same  be  not  produced,  the  admission  in  evidence  of 
any  of  said  documents  will  be  objected  to,  as  containing  only  a  part, 
and  not  the  whole  of  said  documents.) 

JAS.  ALEX.  FORBES. 
Subscribed  in  open  Court,  this  15th  Dec.  1857. 

OGDEN  HOFFMAN, 

Dist.  Judge. 


DISTRICT   COURT  OF  THE  UNITED   STATES   FOR   THE 
NORTHERN  DISTRICT  OF  CALIFORNIA. 

Present :  Ogden  Hoffman,  Judge  ;  the  District  Attorney,  and  Mr. 
Randolph,  for  the  United  States.     Mr.  Peachy,  for  claimant. 

Thursday,  December  17th,  1857. 

Examination  of  James  Alexander  Forbes,  resumed. 

Ques. — You  have  stated  on  your  direct  examination  that  you  had 
never  heard  of  a  grant  of  two  leagues  to  Castillero  until  1 848  or 
1849.  To  what  two  sitios  do  you  refer  in  your  letter  to  Alexander 
Forbes,  .dated  July  14,  1847,  marked  "  0.  H.  X.  No.  8,"  wherein 
you  say,  "  I  was  presented,"  &c,  (passage  in  letter  read  to  witness ;) 
and  what  do  you  mean  when  you  say  in  said  letter,  "  I  could  not  per- 
mit," &c.  ?  (passage  read  to  witness.)  Look  at  the  letter  and  state 
to  what  you  refer  therein. 

Ans. — I  think  I  stated  in  my  direct  examination  that  I  was  not 
certain  of  the  precise  time  at  which  I  was  informed  of  a  grant  to  Cas- 
tillero, and  in  the  two  passages  referred  to,  I  allude  to  the  lands  which 
I  had  been  informed  had  been  solicited  by  Castillero. 

Ques. — In  that  letter  you  speak  of  two  sitios  which  had  been  con- 
ceded to  Castillero  and  socios  ;  and  in  your  last  answer  to  your  last 
question  you  say  you  refer  to  lands  which  had  been  "  solicited"  by 
him  ;  why  did  you  use  the  term  granted  when  you  referred  to  lands 
solicited  ? 


462 

Ans. — The  expressions  used  in  this  letter  were  based  upon  the  in- 
formation which  I  stated  I  had  received. 

Ques. — Had  you  been  informed  before  you  wrote  that  letter  that 
there  had  been  a  grant  to  Castillero  for  two  leagues  ? 

Ans.- — I  had  been  informed  that  Castillero  had  said  that  he  had  a 
grant  for  two  leagues. 

Ques. — Look  at  the  letter  marked  "  F.  No.  24,  J.  A.  Monroe," 
and  particularly  to  the  words,  "  He  Castillero,  succeeded  in  obtaining 
a  grant  to  himself  for  2  sitios,"  &c.  Is  the  grant  of  two  sitios  to 
which  you  therein  refer  the  same  as  that  to  which  you  refer  in  letter 
"  0.  H.  X.  No.  3  "  ? 

(Question  objected  to  as  assuming  that  the  witness  has  said  that  the 
grant  did  exist  at  the  date  of  the  letter,  whereas  the  witness  merely 
stated  he  had  heard  of  such  a  grant.     Taken  subject  to  exception.) 

Ans. — It  is  the  same  tract  which,  as  I  have  before  stated,  I  had 
been  informed  had  been  granted  to  Castillero. 

Ques. — Is  the  grant  the  same  as  that  which  you  have  said  you  had 
heard  had  been  made  to  Castillero,  and  to  which  you  allude  in  letter 
"  O.  H.  X.  No.  3,"  as  the  "  two  leagues  conceded  to  Castillero?" 

Ans. — It  is  the  same. 

Ques. — You  have  said  on  your  direct  examination,  that  you  re- 
ceived a  notarial  copy  of  a  grant  to  Castillero,  referred  to  in  letter 
"  F.  No.  16,  J.  A.  Monroe,"  dated  Nov.  13,  1849.  Look  at  the 
paper  now  shown  you  and  say  if  this  the  notarial  copy  referred  to  by 
you. 

Ans. — It  is. 

(Notarial  copy  offered  in  exidence.  Objected  to.  Point  reserved. 
Marked  "  0.  H.  X.  No.  7.") 

Ques. — When  did  you  first  learn  that  a  contract  of  avio  had  been 
made  between  the  proprietors  of  the  mine  and  Alexander  Forbes  ? 

Ans. — To  the  best  of  my  recollection,  in  the  year  1846. 

Ques. — Did  you  ever  see  a  copy  of  that  contract  ? 

Ans. — I  did. 

Ques. — When  did  you  first  see  it  ? 

Ans. — I  cannot  state  positively ;  I  received  a  certified  copy  of  it  I 
think  in  1850. 

Ques. — Did  you  ever  ratify  as  proprietor,  any  contract  of  avio  ? 

Ans. — I  did. 

Ques. — Do  you  remember  what  contract  you  ratified  ? 

Ans. — I  do. 

Ques. — What  contract  was  it  ? 


463 

Ans. — I  ratified  as  one  of  the  owners,  and  as  representative  of  two 
others,  a  contract  for  working  the  mine  made  with  Mr.  Alexander 
Forbes,  in  Tepic.  I  am  not  certain  whether  it  was  made  by  the  at- 
torney of  the  parties,  Mr.  McNamara,  or  by  Castillero  in  person  and 
Don  Jose  Castro.  It  was  presented  to  me  in  1847,  by  Mr.  Walkin- 
shaw.  I  cannot  state,  positively,  whether  the  contract  was  presented 
to  me  or  not,  or  merely  the  simple  ratification  of  it  by  Castillero  and 
Castro. 

Ques. — Look  at  the  document  now  shown  you,  and  state  whether 
this  is  the  ratification  given  by  you  to  which  you  have  referred  ? 

Ans.. — It  is.  The  writing  on  the  1st,  2d,  and  3d  pages,  and  the 
signature,  are  mine.  It  was  written  at  the  time  it  bears  date.  The 
writing  on  both  sides  of  the  last  sheet  is  not  mine. 

(Offered  in  evidence.  Objected  to.  Point  reserved.  Marked 
"  0.  H.  X.  No.  8.") 

Ques. — At  the  time  you  made  this  ratification,  had  you  ever  seen 
the  ratification  of  the  contract  of  Habilitacion  made  by  Castillero  in 
the  city  of  Mexico  ? 

Ans. — I  cannot  now  precisely  recollect  what  was  the  nature  of  the 
document  presented  to  me  by  Mr.  Walkinshaw  in  1847,  purporting 
to  be  a  ratification  of  the  contract  of  avio  by  Castillero,  but  I  think  it 
was  similar  to  that  which  I  gave. 

Ques.  You  are  certain  then  that  Walkinshaw  showed  you  a  copy 
of  Castillero's  ratification  ? 

Ans.  He  did  show  me  a  document  purporting  to  be  that  ratifica- 
tion. 

Ques.     Did  you  read  it  ? 

Ans.     Probably  I  did. 

Ques.     Was  it  long  or  short  ? 

Ans.     I  think  about  as  long  as  mine,  possibly  longer. 

Ques.  You  have  said  on  your  direct  examination,  that  you  did  not 
receive  the  document  alluded  to  in  Letter  "  F.  No.  9."  dated  Dec. 
1,  1849.  And  you  also  stated  that  you  were  doubtful  whether  the 
notarial  copy  of  the  grant  to  Castillero,  which  you  delivered  to  Torre, 
was  the  document  sent  to  Probst,  Smith  &  Co.,  and  referred  to  in 
letter  "  F.  No.  9."  Please  examine  this  letter  and  state  whether  the 
document  therein  referred  to  as  sent  to  Probst,  Smith  &  Co.  was  a 
notarial  copy  of  a  grant  to  Castillero,  or  some  other  document. 

Ans. — I  cannot  state  precisely  whether  it  was  the  document,  being 
the  notarial  copy  to  which  I  have  testified,  or  whether  it  was  a  certi- 
fied copy  of  the  contract  of  Avio  ;  but  I  think  it  must  have  been  the 
last  mentioned  document. 

The  document  which  I  received  and  which  is  referred  to  in  that 
letter  was  the  certified  copy  of  the  contract  of  Avio. 


464 

Ques. — Look  at  your  letter  of  February  26, 1850,  marked  "  F.  No. 
24,  J.  A.  Monroe,"  and  state  if  the  documents  therein  referred  to  as 
having  been  sent  to  you  in  November,  are  the  same  documents  men- 
tioned in  the  letter  of  Barron,  Forbes  &  Co.,  to  yourself,  dated  30th 
November,  1849,  marked  "  F.  No.  16." 

Ans. — They  are. 

Ques. — Look  at  the  document  now  shown  you  and  state  whether  it 
is  the  same  which  is  referred  to  in  the  letter  "  F.  No.  9,  J.  A.  Mon- 
roe, 0.  H.  No.  7,"  as  having  been  sent  to  you  under  cover  to  Probst, 
Smith  &  Co. 

Ans. — To  the  best  of  my  recollection  it  is. 

(Offered  in  evidence.  Objected  to.  Point  reserved.  Marked 
"  0.  H.  No.  9.") 

Ques. — Look  at  document  "  F.  No.  25,"  wherein  the  Alcalde  is 
requested  to  visit  the'  mine  for  the  purpose  of  inspecting  works  and  of 
reforming  boundaries  of  the  1st  act  of  possession.  What  act  of  pos- 
session is  referred  to  ;  when  was  it  given,  and  to  whom  ? 

Ans. — It  refers  to  the  possession  given  to  Castillero  in  1845. 

Ques. — It  appears  from  your  letter  "  F.  No.  24,"  dated  February 
26,  1850,  that  Castillero  had  received  a  grant  for  two  leagues  on  his 
mining  possession.     What  mining  possession  did  you  refer  to  ? 

Ans. — The  same  as  that  of  which  I  have  just  spoken. 

Ques. — When  you  were  in  Tepic  in  1849,  did  you  see  Castillero  ? 

Ans. — I  did  not.  I  did  not  meet  with  him  at  any  time  during  that 
trip.  | 

Ques. — Did  you  learn  where  he  was  while  you  were  in  Mexico  on 
that  occasion  ? 

Ans. — I  think  I  was  informed  that  he  was  in  Lower  California. 

Ques. — When  did  you  last  see  him  ? 

Ans. — About  the  beginning  of  1846.  I  am  not  certain  as  to  the 
precise  time. 

Ques. — Did  you  ever  hear  of  any  act  of  possession  of  the  mine  of 
New  Almaden  being  given  other  than  that  to  Castillero  in  1845,  and 
that  by  Weekes  in  1848  ? 

Ans. — I  did  not. 

Ques. — If  there  had  been,  would  you  not  have  been  likely  to 
know  it  ? 

Ans. — During  the  time  I  had  charge  of  the  mine  I  should  certainly 
have  known  it. 

Ques. — Would  you  not  have  been  likely  to  know  it  even  when  you 
were  not  in  charge  of  the  mine  ? 

Ans. — It  is  probable  that  I  would. 


465 

Ques. — Were  you  as  well  acquainted  in  1846  with  the  mining  ordi- 
nances, as  you  have  since  become  ? 

Ans. — I  was  not. 

Ques. — Did  the  people  about  the  mine  have  any  knowledge  gen- 
erally of  the  mining  laws,  as  to  the  extent  of  pertenencias,  &c.  ? 

Ans. — Few  if  any  of  the  inhabitants  of  California  had  any  knowl- 
edge of  the  mining  ordinances  at  that  time.  There  was  only  one  copy 
in  California  that  I  knew  of. 

Ques. — Could  either  of  your  vendors  of  your  interest  in  the  mine 
read  or  write  ? 

Ans. — No  sir. 

Ques. — Do  you  know  whether  the  Robles  understood  the  meaning 
of  the  term  "  pertenencia  ?  " 

Ans. — It  is  possible  that  they  may  have  known  it.  They  were 
intimate  with  and  constantly  with  Castillero  and  Padre  Real,  who  had 
the  ordinances. 

Ques. — You  say  that  in  making  that  purchase  you  were  governed 
by  the  partnership  which  Castillero  had  formed  with  the  Robles,  and 
by  the  notorious  fact  that  Castillero  had  received  a  possession  in  1845. 
Have  you  the  original  contract  of  partnership  referred  to,  or  a  copy 
thereof  ? 

Ans. — I  have  neither.  I  gave  to  Mr.  Wm.  E.  Barron  the  certi- 
fied copy  of  the  contract  which  I  received  from  the  Robles  at  the  time 
I  made  my  bargain  in  1846. 

(Document  superscribed  "  Afio  de  1845,  Expediente  del  denuncio," 
&c.  being  document  stated  by  witness  to  have  been  copied  by  him  and 
certified  to  by  Weekes,  Alcalde,  shown  to  witness. 

Ques — Is  the  contract  of  partnership  therein  set  forth  a  copy  of 
that  ?    a  certified  copy  of  which  was  given  to  you  by  the  Robles. 

Ans. — This  is  a  copy  of  the  document  delivered  to  me  by  the 
Robles., 

Ques. — State  how  the  papers  concerning  which  you  have  testified 
in  your  direct  examination  came  into  the  possession  of  the  United 
States  Attorney. 

Ans. — By  virtue  of  a  subpoena  duces  tecum  to  Mr.  Davidson,  with 
whom  they  were  deposited. 

Ques. — How  did  he  get  possession  of  them  ? 

Ans. — They  were  deposited  with  him  by  myself  and  Mr.  Laureneel. 

Ques. — How  came  your  property  to  be  jointly  deposited  ? 

Ans. — I  received  a  consideration  from  him  for  the  use  of  those 
papers  for  a  specific  purpose. 

Ques. — What  was  that  purpose  ? 

Ans. — Mr.  Laureneel  judged  that  those  papers  might  be  useful  to 


466 

him  in  procuring  an  amicable  compromise  with  the  parties  interested 
in  the  mine  of  New  Almaden,  and  he  agreed  to  pay  me  a  considera- 
tion for  the  use  of  them  for  that  purpose. 

Ques. — Did  you  ever  tell  him  that  this  claim  to  the  mine  of  New 
Almaden  was  fraudulent  ? 

Ans. — I  do  not  recollect  that  I  ever  did.  His  inferences  were 
drawn,  I  presume,  from  an  examination  of  the  papers. 

Ques. — Did  you .  ever  offer  to  go  to  Mexico  to  procure  proof  of  the 
fraudulent  character  of  this  claim  ?  And  did  you  assure  him  that 
such  proofs  existed  ? 

Ans. — Mr.  Laurencel  and  myself  had  some  conversations  with  re- 
gard to  the  possibility  of  obtaining  such  proofs. 

Ques. — Did  you  ever  see  the  document  addressed  by  Castillo  Lan- 
zas, Minister  of  Relations  to  the  Governor  of  California,  bearing  date 
May  23,  1846,  and  directing  him  to  put  Castillero  in  possession  of  two 
sitios  on  his  mining  possession,  which  has  been  offered  in  evidence  by 
the  claimants  in  this  case  as  ther  title  ? 

Ans. — I  have  seen  it.  It  is  the  counterpart  of  the  notarial  copy  to 
which  I  have  testified  to-day. 

Ques. — Do  you  know  any  thing  connected  with  that  paper  having 
any  tendency  to  prove  that  it  was  made  on  a  day  different  from  that 
on  which  it  bears  date,  or  that  it  is  not  for  any  reason  genuine,  or  that 
there  has  been  any  fraud  whatever  in  procuring  it  ? 

(Objected  to.     Point  reserved.) 

Ans. — I  am  unable  to  state.  I  do  not  know  how  or  when  it  was 
procured,  or  by  whom. 

Ques. — I  repeat  the  last  question.  And  if  you  know  any  such  fact, 
state  what  it  is. 

Ans. — I  decline  answering  that  question  on  the  ground  that  the 
answer  might  expose  me  to  a  criminal  prosecution. 

Ques. — You  stated  on  your  direct  examination  that  you  had  left  a 
certain  memorandum  in  Tepic,  now  shown  you,  marked  "  F.  No.  21, 
J.  A.  Monroe  ;"  you  also  volunteered  the  statement  that  in  regard  to 
any  measure  carried  on  by  your  suggestion  you  were  ignorant  of  it, 
and  that  you  are  ignorant  whether  any  such  measure  was  carried  on. 
If  that  be  the  case,  how  could  it  criminate  you  to  answer  the  preced- 
ing question  ? 

Ans. — As  regards  the  expressions  in  my  answer,  I  repeat  them. 
Further  than  that  I  decline  to  answer  on  the  same  ground  as  that 
stated  in  my  last  answer. 

Ques. — You  have  already  stated  that  in  the  year  1847  you  had 
been  informed  of  the  existence  of  a  grant  to  Castillero  by  the  Mexican 
Government  of  two  sitios.     You  have  also  stated  that  in  1849,  about 


467 

November,  you  received  a  notarial  copy  of  an  instrument  called  a 
grant  to  Castillero,  being  the  same  which  you  were  advised  by  Barron, 
Forbes  &  Co.,  in  their  letter  of  Nov.  30,  1849,  had  been  sent  to  you 
on  the  13th  of  that  month.  You  have  also  stated  that  you  understood 
this  last  named  document  to  be  the  grant  of  two  leagues,  of  the  exist- 
ence of  which  you  had  been  informed  in  1847.  You  have  also  stated 
in  your  letter  of  the  12th  February,  1850,  "  F.  No.  24,"  that  Castil- 
lero had  succeeded  in  obtaining  a  grant  of  two  sitios  to  himself  on  his 
mining  possession,  and  that  you  referred  to  the  grant  of  which  notarial 
copy  had  been  sent  you  on  the  3d  Nov.,  1849.  You  have  also  stated 
that  the  original  document  signed  by  Castillo  Lanzas  is  a  counterpart 
of  that  notarial  copy.  Please  to  state  on  reconsideration  whether  the 
foregoing  facts  were  correctly  stated  by  you. 

Ans. — With  the  exception  of  a  little  descrepancy  in  the  dates,  and 
also  with  the  explanation  that  this  original  document  from  Castillo 
Lanzas  was  not  seen  by  me  until  some  time  in  1853  or  1854, 1  think 
those  statements  are  correct. 

Ques. — Do  you  know  of  any  act  committed  by  any  person  other 
than  yourself,  connected  with  the  original  grant,  having  a  tendency  to 
prove  its  fraudulent  character  ? 

Ans. — I  do  not.     I  am  not  responsible  for  the  acts  of  other  people. 

(The  question  is  explained  to  the  witness  and  he  repeats  his  answer 
in  the  negative.) 

Ques. — What  did  Mr.  Laurencel  pay  you  for  those  papers  ? 

Ans. — For  the  use  of  those  papers  he  paid  me  110,000. 

Ques. — Was  it  in  cash  ? 

Ans. — It  was. 

Ques.— When  ? 

Ans. — In  May  last. 

Ques. — Was  your  agreement  in  writing  ? 

Ans. — It  was. 

Ques. — Have  you  that  copy  ? 

Ans. — I  am  not  certain  whether  it  is  among  my  papers. 

Ques. — Are  you  not  certain  that  it  is  among  your  papers  ? 

Ans. — It  may  be.     It  is  probable  it  is. 

Ques. — Why  do  you  say  you  are  uncertain  whether  you  have  it  ? 

Ans. — Because  I  have  it  not  about  me.  It  is  probably  in  my  house 
in  Santa  Clara. 

Ques. — Why  then  do  you  express  a  doubt  on  the  matter  ? 

Ans. — Because  there  were  two  agreements,  and  I  am  not  quite 
certain  whether  I  destroyed  both  or  not. 

Ques. — Are  you  not  certain  you  destroyed  neither  ? 

Ans.     No.     I  am  certain  I  destroyed  one. 

Ques.     How  many  agreements  did  you  make  ? 

Ans.     I  have  already  said  I  made  two. 


468 

Ques. — Have  you  received  no  more  than  the  110,000  already 
spoken  of? 

Ans. — Yes. 

Ques. — How  much  ? 

Ans. — I  can't  state  exactly,  as  I  have  not  realized  from  it ;  probably 
a  few  thousand  dollars. 

Ques. — When  did  you  receive  this  last  amount  ? 

Ans. — I  received  a  certain  amount  about  a  fortnight  since. 

Ques. — How  much  ? 

Ans.— A  little  over  2,000  dollars. 

Ques. — Was  that  received  since  Mr.  Laurencel  testified  in  this 
case? 

Ans. — Yes,  sir. 

Ques. — Has  it  been  so  long  as  a  fortnight  ago  ? 

Ans. — I  think  about  twelve  or  thirteen  days. 

Ques. — Who  paid  it  ? 

Ans. — He  did. 

Ques. — Where  and  how  ? 

Ans. — In  this  city,  in  cash. 

Ques. — Where  ? 

Ans. — I  believe  in  Battery  street,  at  a  place  at  which  I  met  him. 

Ques. — In  whose  house  ? 

Ans. — In  Mr.  Sellier's  house. 

Ques. — On  what  account  was  this  paid  ? 

Ans. — On  account  of  money  he  testified  he  owed  me. 

Ques. — How  came  he  to  owe  you  ? 

Ans. — In  accordance  with  his  agreement  with  me. 

Ques. — 110,000  then  was  not  the  whole  consideration  ? 

Ans. — I  have  stated  it  was  not. 

Ques. — Does  he  now  owe  you  anything  on  account  of  that  purchase  ? 

Ans. — I  am  unable  to  state,  as  I  do  not  know  the  result  of  certain 
negotiations  now  pending. 

Ques. — What  is  that  negotiation  ? 

Ans. — The  negotiation  of  certain  notes. 

Ques. — Whose  ? 

Ans. — Notes  for  $3,500  drawn  by  James  Eldridge  and  endorsed 
by  Henry  Laurencel. 

Ques. — The  negotiation  is  for  cashing  those  notes  ? 

Ans. — Yes,  sir. 

Ques. — When  are  they  payable  ? 

Ans. — In  six  and  twelve  months  from  date. 

Ques. — When  are  they  dated  ? 

Ans.— Dec.  2,  1857. 

Ques. — Who  is  to  cash  them  ? 

Ans. — Any  one  who  chooses. 


469 

Ques. — After  they  are  paid  Mr.  Laurencel  will  owe  you  nothing  ? 
Ans. — I  consider  he  owes  me  nothing  now. 

Ques. — Regarding  those  notes  as  worth  their  face,  how  much  have 
you  received  from  Mr.  Laurencel  ? 

Ans.— Viewing  the  matter  in  that  light,  $20,000. 
Ques.— How  do  you  make  out  #20,000  ? 

Ans. — I  hold  two  notes  for  $3,500  each,  and  received  3,000  in  cash. 
Ques. — Are  these  notes  made  by  Eldridge  or  his  agent  ? 
Ans. — By  his  agent  Mr.  Hawley. 

Ques. — You  were  subpoenaed  to  appear  here  last  Monday  week ; 
you  did  not  appear.  Were  you  holding  back  to  procure  from  Mr. 
Laurencel  the  payment  ? 

Ans. — I  was  not  holding  back  precisely  as  you  state.  I  was  de- 
tained by  illness  in  my  family.  I  am  free  to  say  that  I  have  appeared 
here  against  my  will. 

Ques. — Where  were  you  last  Monday  week  ? 
Ans. — In  my  own  residence  at  Santa  Clara. 
Ques. — Where  on  the  following  day  ? 
Ans. — I  went  to  what  was  once  my  rancho. 
Ques. — Where  during  the  remainder  of  the  week  ? 
Ans. — Principally  there. 
Ques. — When  did  you  come  to  San  Francisco  ? 
Ans. — Last  Sunday  I  heard  that  an  attachment  had  issued  against 
me,  and  on  learning  it,  I  immediately  came  to  present  myself  before 
this  honorable  Court  to  purge  myself  of  the  contempt. 

Ques. — For  how  long  a  time  has  Mr.  Laurencel  been  owing  you 
$10,000  on  that  contract  ? 

Ans. — I  can't  recollect  exactly. 

Ques. — Don't  you  remember  the  terms  of  the  contract  ? 
Ans. — I  can  state  them  for  your  satisfaction.     Witness  states  the 
terms  of  the  contract.     The  second  $10,000  was  to  be  paid,  provided 
Mr.  Laurencel  succeeded  in  making  a  compromise.     If  not,  the  mat- 
ter was  to  be  left  for  further  arrangement. 
Ques. — When  wras  the  last  adjustment  made  ? 
Ans. — About  the  second  day  of  December. 

Ques. — Was  that  the  occasion  when  he  pledged  a  rancho  to  you  ? 
Ans. — He  never  did  pledge  a  rancho  to  me. 
Ques. — Not  verbally  ? 

Ans. — That  is  another  thing.  He  did  give  me  a  verbal  assurance 
to  that  effect. 

Ques. — You  say  you  own  no  interest  in  the  mine  of  Almaden  now  ? 
Ans. — No,  I  do  not. 

JAMES  ALEX.  FORBES. 
Subscribed  in  open  court,  this  17th  Dec,  1857. 

OGDEN  HOFFMAN, 
Dist.  Judge. 


470 

UNITED  STATES  DISTRICT  COURT  FOR  THE  NORTHERN 
DISTRICT  OF  CALIFORNIA. 

Friday,  December  18th,  1857. 

Present:  Ogden  Hoffman,  Judge,  &c;  Mr.  District  Attorney  and 
Mr.  Randolph,  for  the  United  States  ;  Mr.  Peachy,  for  the  Claimants. 

Cross-examination  of  James  Alexander  Forbes  resumed. 

Question. — When  did  you  receive  the  Eldridge  notes  ? 

Answer. — On  the  2d  December. 

Ques. — Had  you  refused  to  give  your  tertimony,  or  expressed  an 
unwillingness  to  testify,  so  long  as  Mr.  Laurencel  owed  you  $10,000  ? 

Ans. — From  the  commencement  of  the  negotiation  with  him,  I 
told  him  that  it  was  incompatible  with  my  position  to  testify  in  this 
case. 

Ques. — How  came  your  final  settlement  with  Mr.  Laurencel  to 
have  been  made  just  after  he  had  given  his  testimony,  and  a  very  short 
time  before  you  came  on  the  stand  to  give  your's  ? 

Ans. — As  I  never  consented  to  the  presentation  of  any  papers  be- 
fore any  Court,  I  opposed  their  introduction  here,  stating  my  objection 
to  the  Court,  but  being  apprehensive  that  they  would  ultimately  be  in- 
troduced, I  stated  to  Mr.  Laurencel  that  we  must  have  some  arrange-, 
ment  with  regard  to  the  ultimate  payment,  which  was  effected. 

Ques — That  was  after  the  papers  had  been  brought  into  Court  by 
Mr.  Davidson? 

Yes,  sir. 

Ques. — These  papers  were  then  put  to  a  use  which  would  have  been 
a  gross  violation  of  Mr.  Laurencel's  contract  with  you  if  he  had  pro- 
cured them  to  be  so  used  ?    Is  it  not  so  ? 

Ans. — It  is  true  that  it  was  against  the  letter  of  his  contract  with 
me.  But  I  was  informed  that  he  was  compelled  to  do  it  by  the  force 
of  circumstances  here. 

Ques. — What  circumstances  do  you  refer  to  ? 

Ans. — I  have  no  personal  knowledge  of  those  circumstances. 

Ques. — What  circumstances  were  those  which  you  were  informed 
existed  ? 

Ans. — I  am  unable  to  state  ;  they  were  not  particularized  to  me. 

Ques. — Were  you  satisfied  with  the  explanation  given  to  you  ? 

Ans. — I  was  not,  and  therefore  opposed  the  presentation  of  these 
papers  here. 


471 

Ques. — In  what  respect  was  the  explanation  unsatisfactory  to  you  ? 
Did  it  fail  to  satisfy  you  that  these  papers  had  been  used  without  Mr. 
Laurencel's  consent  or  procurement  ? 

Ans. — It  failed  to  satisfy  me  in  all  respects ;  I  am  unable  to  state 
whether  they  were  used  without  his  consent  or  concurrence. 

Ques. — Did  not  your  dissatisfaction,  in  part,  arise  from  the  fact 
that  these  papers  were  used  before  you  were  paid  by  Mr.  Lauren- 
eel  ? 

Ans. — I  cannot  say  that  it  did  ;  I  was  at  all  times  averse  to  having 
the  papers  used,  as  was  evident  by  my  objection  in  Court  the  day  they 
were  presented. 

Ques. — Was  it  not  understood  between  Mr.  Laurencel  and  any 
other  persons  and  yourself,-  at  the  time  of  the  treaty  for  those  papers, 
or  any  other  time,  that  your  testimony  would  be  required  to  prove  that 
they  were  correspondence  between  you  and  the  persons  by  whom  they 
purport  to  have  been  written  ? 

Ans. — It  was  not  understood  so  until  after  their  presentation,  when 
it  was  signified  to  me  that  it  would  be  necessary  so  to  prove. 

Ques. — Were  you  not  present  when  Mr.  Laurencel's  testimony  was 
given  in  this  case  on  Nov.  28th  ? 

Ans. — I  was  present. 

Ques. — After  the  Attorney  for  the  United  States  attempted  to 
prove  by  that  witness,  by  means  of  your  declarations  to  him,  that  these 
letters  constituted  the  correspondence  between  you  and  the  persons  by 
whom  they  purport  to  have  been  written,  and  the  Court  refused  to  ad- 
mit such  delarations  in  evidence,  were  you  not  told  by  Mr.  Laurencel 
or  any  other  person,  that  your  testimony  was  essential  to  give  effect  to 
these  letters,  and  were  you  not  requested  to  testify  for  that  purpose, 
and  was  not  your  final  settlement  with  Mr.  Laurencel,  consisting  of  the 
payment  of  three  thousand  dollars  in  cash,  and  the  assignment  of  Eld- 
ridge's  two  notes  for  $3,500  each,  made  on  the  condition,  or  with  the 
understanding,  or  under  a  promise  on  your  part,  that  you  would  testify 
in  this  case  ? 

Ans.— No,  sir.  I  have  already  answered  that  it  was  stated  to  me 
by  the  counsel  for  the  United  States,  that  it  would  be  necessary  to 
prove  the  identity  of  those  papers  ;  my  ultimate  arrangement  with  Mr. 
Laurencel  emanated  from  himself  and  was,  not  made  contingent  upon 
my  testifying,  other  than  I  have  already  stated. 

Ques. — When  you  refused  yesterday  to  answer  a  question  on  the 
ground  that  it  might  tend  to  criminate  you,  did  you  suppose  that  an 
answer  in  the  negative  to  that  question  would  criminate  you,  because 
it  might  be  contradictory  to  some  statement,  verbal  or  written,  under 
oath  or  not  under  oath,  made  by  you  to  Mr.  Laurencel,  or  any  other 
person,  and  not  in  any  court  of  justice  ? 


472 

Ques. — I  decline  to  answer  at  all,  on  the  ground  that  it  involves  me 
in  a  criminal  prosecution. 

(Counsel  for  claimants  request  the  Court  to  compel  an  answer  to 
the  question.  The  Court  refuses  sok  to  do,  whereupon  counsel  for 
claimants  excepts.     Exception  noted.) 

Ques. — Were  you  not  one  of  the  defendants  in  the  suit  of  James 
Tobin  et  al,  vs.  Robert  Walkinshaw  et  al,  in  the  Circuit  Court  of  the 
United  States  for  this  District  ? 

Ans. — I  was. 

Ques. — Was  that  a  suit  in  Chancery,  instituted  to  obtain  injunction 
to  restrain  defendants  from  working  the  mine  of  New  Almaden,  and 
for  the  appointment  of  a  receiver  and  for  other  purposes  ? 

Ans. — I  do  not  exactly  recollect ;  I  was  made  a  defendant  in  sev- 
eral suits,  even  when  I  had  no  interest  in  the  mine. 

Ques. — Did  you  make  an  answer  in  that  suit,  and  was  it  under  oath  ? 

Ans. — I  think  I  was. made  to  make  several  answers  in  those  differ- 
ent suits.  I  presume  Mr.  Peachy  alludes  to  one  that  was  printed  ; 
That  answer  was  made  in  my  name,  and  those  of  several  other  parties. 

Ques. — Was  it  sworn  to  by  you  ? 

Ans. — I  think  it  wTas. 

Ques. — Have  you  still  any  interest  in  the  Almaden  mine  ? 

Ans. — I  have  not. 

Ques. — What  was  your  interest ;  to  whom  did  you  sell ;  and  when 
and  what  did  you  ask  for  it  ? 

Ans. — My  interest  was  two  barras,  that  is  2-24ths  ;  I  sold  one  in 
1850  or  1851  to  Mr.  John  Parrott  for  the  sum  of  $24,000,  part  in 
cash  and  part  payable  on  long  terms ;  I  sold  the  other  to  Mr.  Wm.  E. 
Barron  for  130,000  in  1855. 

Ques. — Have  you  been  paid  all  the  money  for  which  you  sold  the 
two  shares  ? 

Ans. — I  have. 

Ques. — Do  either  of  those  deeds  contain  a  warranty  ? 

Ans. — I  think  the  first  contained  a  warranty  against  every  body 
but  the  United  States.     The  second  was  a  quit-claim. 

Ques. — Look  at  the  document  shown  you  ;  state  what  it  is ;  in 
whose  writing,  and  by  whom  signed  ? 

Ans. — This  is  a  deed  to  which  I  have  just  testified  for  one  share  of 
the  Almaden  mine,  sold  to  Mr.  Wm.  E.  Barron  ;  it  is  in  my  handwrit- 
ing and  signed  by  me  ;  it  is  the  second  deed  made  by  me  for  this  same 
share,  the  draft  of  which  was  sent  to  me  by  Mr.  Halleck. 

Ques. — What  part  of  the  mine  is  a  barra  If 

Ans. — One  twenty-fourth. 

Ques. — Look  at  the  articles  of  partnership  between  Castillero  and 
his  associates,  by  which  you  said  you  were  guided  when  you  purchas- 


473 

ed  of  the  the  Robles,  and  say  what  interest,  under  the  contract,  you 
learnt  the  Robles  had  at  the  time  you  made  the  contract  ? 

Ans. — Four  barras. 

Ques. — How  many  barras  are  named  in  that  instrument  ? 

Ans.     Four. 

Ques.     Among  all  the  partners  I  mean  ? 

Ans.     It  is  not  explicitly  stated;  there  are  24. 

Ques.     What  is  there  stated  ? 

Ans.  Witness  reads  clause  from  contracts,  wherein  Castillero  dis- 
poses of  one-half  his  interest,  and  divides  that  half  into  three  acciones 
of  four  barras  each. 

Ques.  In  examining  the  contract  of  partnership,  where  did  you 
find  the  expression  "  las  tres  pertenencias  de  la  mina,"  used  in  the 
deed  of  sale  from  Robles  to  you  ? 

Ans.  I  did  not  find  it  any  where  ;  I  was  informed  by  the  agent  of 
Castillero,  Padre  Real,  that  the  mine  comprised  three  pertenecias. 

(The  last  part  of  the  answer  objected  to.) 

(Answer  signed  by  witness  produced  from  files  of  Circuit  Court, 
shown  to  witness.) 

Ques.  Is  that  the  answer  made  by  you  in  the  suit  before  men- 
tioned ? 

Ans.  It  is.  It  was  sworn  to  me  as  a  document  prepared  by  the 
counsel  for  the  mine,  I  not  being  interested  in  the  suit.  As  regards 
the  facts  therein  set  forth,  they  are  derived  principally  from  informa- 
tion from  other  parties.  As  to  the  facts  set  forth  in  paragraphs  29, 
30,  31,  which  have  been  read  to  me,  they  were  stated  by  me  on  infor- 
mation derived  from  others.  I  make  the  same  observation  with  regard 
to  the  whole  of  the  answer,  except  where  I  make  statements  based  on 
my  own  knowledge. 

(Counsel  for  claimants  offers  in  evidence  the  paragraphs  29,  30, 
81. 

Counsel  for  United  States  requires  the  whole  answer  to  be  put  in 
evidence,  if  any  part  is  so  received. 

The  Attorney  for  claimants  expresses  his  reluctance  so  to  do,  on 
the  ground  that  the  answer  is  voluminous,  and  in  great  part  irrelevant, 
and  that  he  does  not  wish  to  encumber  the  record  ;  and  offers  to  put  in 
evidence  such  parts  as  the  attorney  for  the  United  States  may  select 
as  relevant  to  the  matter  in  issue. 

The  counsel  for  United  States  expresses  his  inability  to  make  such 

38 


474 

selection  as  suggested,  and  requires  the  whole  answer  to  be  put  in,  to 
which  counsel  for  claimant  accedes.) 

Ques.  At  the  time  you  made  that  answer,  had  jou  not  seen  the 
documents  referred  to  by  you  in  the  31st  section  ? 

(Witness  desires  to  see  the  section  alluded  to.) 

Ans.  I  stated  that  I  had  seen  the  notarial  copy  to  which  I  have 
testified,  but  it  must  be  evident  that  what  is  there  asserted,  is  based 
on  information  of  other  parties.  I  could  not  know  whether  the  Presi- 
dent of  Mexico  was  please^  or  not  pleased. 

Ques. — You  stated  yesterday  that  you  had  seen  the  original,  which 
is  a  counterpart  of  the  notarial  copy  referred  to  by  you,  some  time  in 
1853  ;  why  do  you  now  speak  in  your  last  answer  only  of  the  notarial 
copy  ? 

Ans. — It  is  very  true  that  I  did  state  I  had  seen  a  document  pur- 
porting to  be  such  original.  I  saw  it  in  the  hands  of  Mr.  Wm.  E. 
Barron  or  Mr.  Peachy.  I  mentioned  the  notarial  copy  because  I  had 
been  more  familiar  with  it.  I  did  not  mean  that  I  had  seen  only  that 
copy. 

Ques. — When  you  put  in  this  answer,  did  you  have  any  reason  to  be- 
lieve that  the  document  claimed  to  be  a  title  in  colonization  mentioned 
in  the  31st  section  of  said  answer,  was  not  made  at  the  time  it  pur- 
ports to  have  been  made,  or  was  not  genuine,  or  was  in  any  manner 
affected  by  fraud  ? 

Ans. — I  am  compelled  to  decline  to  answer  that  question  for  the 
reason  before  given. 

Ques. — When  you  made  this  answer,  did  you  have  any  reason  to  be- 
lieve that  what  is  stated  in  the  29th  section  as  to  Antonio  M.  Pico, 
Alcalde,  on  the  30th  Dec,  1845,  having  put  Andres  Castillero  in  pos- 
session of  said  mine  and  having  granted  to  him  said  tract  of  land  was 
not  true  ? 

Ans. — No,  sir.  So  far  as  regards  the  possession,  some  sort  of  a 
possession,  possibly  of  3,000  varas,  I  had  no  reason  to  believe  it  un- 
true. 

Ques. — Had  you  any  reason  to  believe  at  the  time  you  put  in  that 
answer,  that  the  facts  stated  in  the  30  th  section  thereof,  were  not 
true  ? 

Ans.     I  decline  to  answer  on  the  same  grounds  as  before. 

Ques. — Look  at  the  document  marked  "F.  No.  11,  O.  H.  No.  9," 
compare  it  with  the  document  now  shown  you,  and  say  whether  one  is 
a  press  copy  of  the  other  ? 

Ans. — I  believe  the  latter  to  be  a  press  copy  of  the  former. 


475 

Ques. — Look  at  the  words  in  F.  No.  11,  "  I  have  every  reason  to 
believe  the  documents  you  mention  will  be  found  in  the  city  of  Mexi- 
co ;"  look  at  the  same  words  in  the  press  copy  ;  say  what  difference 
you  find. 

Ans. — The  word  "  found"  is  underscored  in  the  original  and  not  in 
the  copy. 

Ques. — Have  you  not  within  the  last  two  years  taken  the  benefit  of 
the  insolvent  act  ? 

Ans. — I  have. 

Ques. — When  were  the  proceedings  instituted,  and  where  ?  What 
was  the  date  of  your  discharge  ? 

Ans. — The  proceedings  were  in  the  Court  for  the  3d  Judicial  District 
of  California,  in  November,  1856.  I  obtained  my  discharge  I  think  in 
January  of  this  year. 

Ques. — What  wbs  the  amount  of  your  liablities  ? 

Ans. — I  don't  recollect.  As  near  as  I  can  recollect  $100,000  and 
odd. 

Ques. — Were  Bolton,  Barron  &  Co.  among  your  creditors  ? 

Ans. — They  were  ;  for  the  amount  of  a  note  of  mine  which  they 
had  discounted  without  my  knowledge.  It  was  payable  to  other  par- 
ties. 

Ques. — How  much  was  you  their  debtor  ? 

Ans. — The  amount  of  that  note,  $3,200,  and  a  small  balance  of 
$80. 

Ques. — Did  you  after  your  discharge  attempt  to  borrow  from  them, 
and  if  so,  what  amount  ? 

Ans. — In  consequence  of  the  oral  and  written  statements  of  those 
gentlemen  that  my  services  in  their  behalf,  in  the  negociation  of  the 
mine,  had  been  very  beneficial  to  them,  I  was  inspired  with  the  hope 
that  in  the  storm  of  adversity  which  had  overtaken  me,  they  were  the 
persons  to  whom  I  should  apply  for  aid.  I  did  apply  for  a  loan  of 
$10,000  to  make  certain  investments  I  desired  to  make,  upon  which  I 
offered  to  secure  them.  I  was  informed  by  the  senior  partner.  Mr. 
Bolton,  that  he  would  confer  with  Mr.  Barrron,  and  after  one  week,  in 
which  I  was  every  day  at  their  office,  I  was  informed  by  Mr.  Bolton 
that  my  proposition  could  not  be  entertained. 

Ques. — Was  it  after  their  refusal  that  you  sold  to  Mr.  Laurencel 
the  use  of  these  papers  ? 

Ans.  —It  was. 

Direct  Examination  Resumed. 

(Counsel  for  U.  S.  reads  notice  to  produce  certain  paper  served  on 
Counsel  for  Claimant,  August  20,  1857,  and  calls  for  the  same. 


476 

The  Counsel  for  Claimant  states  that  he  does  not  know  whether  he 
has  them  or  not,  not  having  had  time  to  examine.  Counsel  for  U.  S. 
offers  certified  copies  in  evidence,  and  offers  to  allow  Counsel  for 
Claimant  to  introduce  and  substitute  for  the  same  the  originals,  if  the 
same  are  in  his  possession.     Objected  to.     Point  reserved.) 

Ques. — Look  at  document  marked  "  H.  L.  No.  1,"  purporting  to 
be  a  certified  copy  from  Recorder's  office  of  four  acts  of  sale,  each  of 
one  barra,  made  at  Tepic  by  Jose'  Castro  to  Alexander  Forbes,  dated 
respectively  March  1st,  1847,  April  12,  1847,  April  16,  1847,  and 
May  10,  1847,  and  state  whether  you  filed  the  originals  of  which 
these  purport  to  be  copies,  for  record  in  the  Recorder's  office  of  Santa 
Clara  county  ? 

Ans. — I  did. 

Ques. — When  ? 

Ans. — In  April,  1854,  as  far  as  my  recollection  serves  me. 

(Certified  copy  offered  in  evidence.  Objected  to.  Point  reserved. 
Marked  "  0.  H.  No.  28J"  and  attached  to  deposition  ;  also  translation 
marked  «  0.  H.  No.  29.") 

Ques. — Look  at  paper  marked  "  H.  L.  No.  4,"  purporting  to  be  a 
deed  from  S.  &  T.  Robles,  by  yourself  as  their  attorney,  to  Robert 
Walkinshaw,  one  of  the  claimants,  and  state  if  you  made  such  a  deed 
of  which  this  is  a  copy. 

Ans. — I  executed  that  deed.  This  is  a  copy  of  it  to  the  best  of  my 
recollection. 

(Deed  offered  in  evidence.  Objected  to.  Point  reserved.  Marked 
"  0.  H.  No.  30." 

Ques. — Look  at  this  paper  marked  "  H.  L.  No.  5,"  purporting  to  be  a 
certified  copy  of  a  deed  from  J.  M.  Real  to  Robert  Walkinshaw,  dated 
August  9,  1849  ;  state  whether  you  have  any  knowledge  of  a  sale  by 
Padre  Real  to  Walkinshaw  of  one  barra  as  set  forth  in  that  deed. 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans. — I  do. 

Ques. — Is  that  a  copy  of  the  deed  to  the  best  of  your  knowledge  ? 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans. — I  was  cognizant  of  the  fact  of  the  sale  at  that  time.     I  once 


477 

madr  a  copy  of  fiie  deed  from  the  records  soon  after  the  time  of  the 
sale.     I  believe  this  to  be  correct. 

(Deed  offered  in  evidence,  and  translation.  Objected  to.  Point 
reserved.     Marked  "  0.  H.  No.  31"  and  "  0.  H.  No.  32.") 

Ques. — Look  at  this  paper  marked  "  H.  L.  No.  2,"  purporting  to 
be  a  certified  copy  of  a  deed  from  Andres  Castillero  to  Alexander 
Forbes  ;  read  it  and  say  what  you  know  about  it. 

Ans. — I  was  cognizant  of  the  fact  of  the  purchase  of  3  barras  in 
the  mine  of  Almaden  by  Alexander  Forbes  from  Padre  Real,  at  the 
time  he  was  here  in  1847.  I  never  saw  the  original,  but  have  seen  it 
on  record. 

Examination  suspended. 


GEORGE  M.  YOELL  CALLED  ON  THE  PART  OF  THE 
UNITED  STATES. 

Ques. — What  is  your  business,  &c? 

Ans. — I  have  been  employed  from  March  to  October  of  this  year 
in  the  Recorders  office  of  Santa  Clara  county. 

Look  at  the  certificate  to  this  paper  marked  "  H.  L.  No.  2,"  and 
say  whether  you  are  the  person  who  made  it,  and  at  whose  request. 

Ans. — I  am.  I  made  the  copy  certified  to,  at  Mr.  Laurencel's  re- 
quest. I  copied  it  from  the  records  in  the  office,  from  "  Book  3  of 
deeds,"  which  contains  the  old  Spanish  records.  It  was  found  in  the 
old  Juzgado  or  Alcalde's  office.  They  were  transferred  there  when 
the  State  Government  was  formed.  I  do  not  know  the  fact ;  it  is  so 
considered  in  the  Recorder's  office. 

(Paper  offered  in  evidence  ;  also  translation.  Objected  to.  Point 
reserved.     Marked  0.  H.  No.  33.     0.  H.  No.  34.) 


JAMES  ALEXANDER  FORBES'  EXAMINATION  RESUMED. 

Ques. — Will  you  produce  the  original  power  of  attorney  spoken  of 
by  you  ? 

Ans. — In  expectation  of  being  ordered  to  produce  it  I  sent  for  it, 
and  received  it  yesterday. 

(Paper  produced.) 


478 

Ques. — Look  at  this  paper  purporting  to  be  a  power  of  attorney  to 
yourself  from  Alexander  Forbes,  dated  April  23d,  1849,  and  say  if 
the  signature  is  genuine,  and  in  whose  handwriting  it  is,  and  whether 
you  received  it  at  the  time  of  its  date. 

Ans. — The  signature  is  the  genuine  signature  of  Alexander  Forbes. 
The  body  is  in  the  handwriting  of  Mr.  Wm.  E.  Barron.  I  received 
it  in  Tepic,  Mexico,  in  May,  1849. 

(Paper  produced  in  evidence.     Marked  "  0.  H.  No.  35.") 

Ques. — Look  at  paper  marked  "  H.  L.  No.  7,"  and  say  whether  you 
made  the  original  deed  of  which  this  a  copy. 

Ans. — I  did.     I  believe  this  to  be  a  copy  of  my  deed. 

(Marked  «  0.  H.  No.  36.") 

Ques. — Look  at  "  H.  L.  No.  8,"  purporting  to  be  a  copy  of  a  deed 
by  yourself  to  Henry  Laurencel  of  l^ths  of  one  24th.  Did  you  make 
such  a  deed  and  is  this  a  copy  of  it  ? 

Ans. — I  did  make  such  a  deed,  and  I  believe  that  to  be  a  copy.  I 
desire  to  state  that  prior  to  my  sale  of  one  barra  to  Mr.  Barron  I  had 
re-acquired  the  three-twentieths  previously  sold  by  me. 

(Paper  offered  in  evidence.     Marked  "  0.  H.  No.  37.") 

(Counsel  for  U.  S.  offers  certified  copy  of  deed  to  Bolton,  Barron 
&  Co.  of  three-twentieths  of  a  barra,  marked  "  H.  L.  No.  9." 
Marked  by  the  Court  "  0.  H.  No.  38."  Also  certified  copy  of  deed 
from  Bolton  &  Barron  to  F.  E.  Fernandez  ;  marked  "  0.  H.  No.  39." 
Also  copy  of  a  deed  from  F.  Fernandez  to  J.  F.  De  Leon,  marked 
"  H.  L.  No.  11."     Marked  by  the  Court  "  0.  H.  No.  40.") 

Ques. — Look  at  paper  marked  "  H.  L.  No.  12,"  and  say  did  you 
receive  such  a  deed  ;  and  if  so,  what  did  you  do  with  the  original,  and 
is  this  a  copy  ? 

Ans. — I  did  receive  it.  I  filed  the  original  for  record  ;  it  is  now  in 
my  possession.     This  is  a  copy  of  it  I  think. 

(Deed  admitted  by  consent.     Marked  "  0.  H.  No.  41.") 

(Paper  produced  marked  "  H.  L.  No.  13.") 

Ques. — Did  you  make  such  a  deed,  and  is  this  a  copy  of  it  ? 
Ans. — I  did.     This  is  a  copy  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge. 

(Marked  "  0.  H.  No.  42.") 


479 

Ques. — Look  at  this  paper  marked  "  H.  L.  No.  14  ;"  did  you  make 
the  original,  and  does  it  refer  to  the  same  barra  as  the  last  deed  ? 

Ans. — The  original  is  already  in  evidence.  I  made  it,  and  it  refers 
to  the  same  barra. 

(Deed  offered  in  evidence.     Marked  "  0.  H.  No.  43.") 

Ques. — Look  at  this  paper,  "  H.  L.  No.  15,"  purporting  to  be  a 
certified  copy  of  a  deed  from  Jecker,  Torre  &  Co.  to  Barron,  Forbes 
&  Co.,  made  in  the  City  of  Mexico  on  7th  December,  1852,  and  say 
if  you  know  anything  of  the  original. 

Ans. — I  have  seen  the  record  of  sue  a  a  deed  in  the  Recorder's  of- 
fice of  Santa  Clara  county. 

(Copy  offered  in  evidence.  Objected  to.  Point  reserved.  Marked 
"  0.  H.  No.  44,"  and  translation  marked  "  0.  H.  No.  45.") 

Examination  adjourned  until  Saturday,  Dec.  19th. 

JAS.  ALEX.  FORBES. 

Subscribed  before  me,  this  18th  Dec,  1857. 

OGDEN  HOFFMAN. 


BEFORE  THE  DISTRICT  COURT  OF  THE  U.  S.  FOR  THE 
NORTHERN  DISTRICT  OF  CALIFORNIA. 

Saturday,  December  19,  1857. 

Present :  Ogden  Hoffman,  Judge  ;  Counsel  for  United  States  ;  Mr. 
Peachy  for  Claimants. 

James  Alexander  Forbes'  Examination  resumed. 

(Counsel  for  United  States  offers  deed  from  Andres  Castillero  to 
Frederick  Billings,  Oct,  2d,  1856.  Also  deed  from  F.  Billings  to 
Wm.  E.  Barron,  Nov.  18,  1856.  Execution  admitted.  Objected  to 
as  irrelevant — point  reserved.  Marked  "  0.  H.  No.  46,"  and  "  0. 
H.  No.  47.") 


480 

(Counsel  for  United  States  offers  an  additional  extract  from  Exhibit 
attached  to  deposition  of  Jose'  M.  Lafragua  in  this  case,  which  extracts 
are  not  included  in  the  transcript.  Admitted  by  consent.  Marked 
"  0.  H.  No.  48,"  and  translation  marked  "  0.  H.  No.  49." 

Also  certified  transcript  from  records  of  District  Court  for  Third 
Judicial  District,  Maria  G.  Bernal  de  Berreyesa  et  al.  vs.  James  Al- 
exander Forbes  and  Robert  Walkinshaw,  complaints  in  trespass  and 
ejectment,  marked  "  0.  H.  No.  50." 

Also,  bill  and  in  suit  in  this  Court,  Berreyesa  et  al.  vs.  Forbes  et  al, 
marked  "  0.  H.  No.  51."     Objected  to  as  irrelevant.) 

Ques. — When  did  you  first  hear  this  mine  called  u  New  Almaden"? 

Ans. — I  don't  exactly  recollect ;  about  the  time  of  the  arrival  of  Mr. 
Alexander  Forbes  in  California. 

Ques. — Was  it  before  or  after  Mr.  Walkinshaw  arrived  ? 

Ans. — I  think  it  was  after. 

Ques. — Who  was  the  person  whom  you  heard  say,  that  he  had  heard 
Castillero  say,  he  (Castillero)  had  a  grant  ? 

Ans. — My  answer  yesterday  did  not  specify  the  person  ;  I  said  I 
had  heard  a  person  say  that  he  had  been  informed  that  Castillero  had 
said  he  had  a  grant ;  that  person  was  Robert  Walkinshaw.  He  in- 
formed me  that  Mr.  Alexander  Forbes  had  told  him  that  Castillero  had 
said  he  had  a  grant. 

Ques. — Was  that  the  same  Mr.  Walkinshaw  who  sued  you  in  1849 
before  Alcalde  May,  and  whom  you  then  charged  with  being  interested 
with  Horace  Hawes,  in  an  attempt  to  denounce  the  mine. 

Ans. — It  was  ;  perhaps  it  would  be  incorrect  to  say  he  he  sued  me  ; 
I  opposed  his  proceedings  growing  out  of  that  denouncement. 

Ques. — Were  there  not  two  suits  pending  at  the  same  time,  one 
for  the  denouncement  of  the  mine,  and  the  other  for  the  possession  ? 

Ans. — There  were  two  suits  nearly  simultaneous.  This  Robert 
Walkinshaw  was  the  same  man  with  whom  I  had  the  litigation  in  1849. 

Ques. — Have  you  not  heard  the  same  Walkinshaw  say  that  the  title 
was  all  a  fraud  and  a  humbug  ?  and  what  have  you  heard  him  say  ? 

(Objected  to.     Question  withdrawn.) 

Ques. — Have  you  not  heard  Mr.  Walkinshaw  make  declarations 
different  in  purport  from  that  to  which  you  have  alluded  ? 

(Objected  to.     Point  reserved.) 

Ans.  Mr.  Walkinshaw  has  made  statements  to  me  that  there  was 
no  title  to  the  mine,  and  signified  to  me  his  wish  that  I  should  coop- 


481 

erate  with  him  in  obtaining  a  title  from  the  Berreyesa's.  The  first 
declaration  to  that  effect  of  Walkinshaw  to  me,  was  before  he  was  a 
partner  in  interest,  and  the  latter,  which  is  the  one  to  which  I  princi- 
pally allude,  was  after  he  became  a  party  in  interest. 

Qns. — About  what  time  were  these  declarations  made  ? 

Ans.— In  184T  and  1849. 

Ques. — About  what  time  was  it  that  he  made  the  declaration  in  fa- 
vor of  the  title  to  which  you  have  referred  ? 

Ans. — It  was  in  1847,  a  short  time  prior  to  his  departure  for  Mexico. 

Ques. — Which  was  made  first  ? 

Ans. — It  was  on  the  occasion  of  his  return  from  Mexico  that  he 
stated  to  me  he  had  been  informed  that  Castillero  had  got  a  grant.  I 
desire  to  correct  a  previous  answer  as  taken  down  by  the  Court.  Mr. 
Walkinshaw  related  to  me  what  Mr.  Forbes  had  stated  he  had  heard 
Castillero  say,  in  1847  on  his  return  from  Mexico. 

Ques. — When  did  first  you  hear  him  say  there  was  no  title  ? 

Ans. — Prior  to  his  departure  for  Mexico. 

Ques. — When  did  you  hear  him  say  so  the  second  time  ? 

Ans. — In  1849.  It  is  so  set  forth  in  his  complaint  against  me  at 
that  time. 

Ques. — Did  you  ever  hear  him  orally  make  such  declarations  ? 

Ans. — He  told  me  so  himself,  before  the  commencement  of  those 
difficulties. 

Ques. — Was  the  last  occasion  before  or  after  he  became  interested 
in  the  mine  ? 

Ans. — He  was  then  interested  in  the  mine. 

Ques. — Look  at  the  letter  "  0.  H.  X.  No.  8;"  say  how  you  trans- 
mitted that  letter  to  Alexander  Forbes. 

Ans. — I  do  not  remember. 

Ques. — That  being  a  time  of  war,  what  manner  were  you  enabled 
to  correspond  with  alien  enemies  ? 

Ans. — The  only  opportunity  in  general,  was  by  vessels  of  war. 

Ques. — Did  American  vessels  of  war  carry  your  commercial  corres- 
pondence to  merchants  in  Mexico  ? 

Ans. — I  did  not  say  American  vessels  of  war. 

Ques. — Can  you  say  they  did  not  carry  your  correspondence  of  that 
nature  ? 

Ans. — I  do  not  recollect  of  having  sent  correspondence  by  Ameri- 
can men-of-war.  I  may  have  done  so  ;  I  do  recollect  of  having  sent 
by  British  men-of-war. 

^  Ques. — What  American  man-of-war,  is  it  possible,  would  have  car- 
ried a  letter  from  you  to  an  alien  ememy  ? 

Ans. — It  is  possible,  but  not  probable  ;  letters  might  have  been  sent 
by  a  private  hand  on  board ;  especially  considering  the  friendly  rela- 


482 

tions  between  gentlemen  on  board  those  vessels,  and  the  persons  to 
whom  I  desired  to  write. 

Ques. — Do  you  mean  amity  between  American  officers  and  British 
merchants  resident  in  Mexico  ? 

Ans. — I  do.  I  don't  mean  amity  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  term, 
but  merely  friendly  relations  arising  from  hospitalities  received, 
&c. 

Ques. — Did  you  send  this  letter  (0.  H.  X.  No.  3)  by  an  American 
vessel-of-war  ? 

Ans. — I  cannot  remember. 

Ques. — Did  you  send  it  by  a  British  man-of-war  ? 

Ans. — I  cannot  state. 

Ques. — What  British  man-of-war  left  the  ports  of  this  State  for  the 
ports  of  Mexico  about  that  time  ? 

Ans. — I  am  unable  to  state.  There  was  a  British  frigate  com- 
manded by  Capt.  Duntz,  which  left  here  about  that  time.  I  think 
after  the  date  of  that  letter.     I  can't  say  how  long  after. 

Ques. — Did  you  send  this  letter  by  that  frigate  ? 

Ans. — I  can't  say.  I  now  recollect  that  she  left  before  the  14th 
July,  1847. 

Ques. — Was  it  not  your  custom  to  express  in  your  letters  by  what 
conveyance  they  were  sent  ? 

Ans. — It  was  not  my  custom  to  do  so  in  every  case.  I  generally 
did  so. 

Ques. — Was  it  not  Mr.  Alexander  Forbes'  custom  to  endorse  on 
the  letters  when  he  received  them  ? 

Ans. — I  believe  it  was  generally  his  custom. 

Ques. — Is  this  so  endorsed  ? 

Ans. — It  is  not. 

Ques. — When  did  you  last  see  this  letter  before  it  was  produced 
here? 

Ans. — I  don't  recollect. 

Ques. — Had  you  seen  it  at  any  time  since  the  year  1847  ? 

Ans. — I  had  not. 

Ques. — Did  you  see  it  at  any  time  in  the  year  1847,  after  its 
date  ? 

Ans. — I  do  not  recollect  that  I  did. 

Ques — Was  it  among  the  papers  which  you  turned  over  to  Mr.  De 
La  Torre  ? 

Ans. — I  am  unable  to  state  whether  it  was  or  not.     I  think  not. 

Ques. — Was  it  received  by  Mr.  Forbes  before  he  left  Mexico  for 
this  country  ? 

Ans I  do  not  know  whether  it  was  or  not. 

Ques. — Are  you  absolutely  certain  it  was  written  at  or  about  the 
day  of  its  date  ? 


483 

Ans. — I  think  it  was. 

Ques. — What  did  you  take  the  letter  to  the  light  for  ? 

Ans. — I  was  looking  to  see  the  water-mark. 

Ques. — Why  do  you  speak  doubtfully  on  the  subject  ? 

Ans. — I  think  it  was  written  at  that  time.  I  have  no  reasons  for 
supposing  it  was  not. 

Ques. — By  what  conveyance  did  Mr.  Walkinshaw  return  to  Mexico 
in  184T. 

Ans. — By  the  British  schooner  "  William." 

Ques. — In  what  month  ? 

Ans. — I  am  unable  to  state.  At  the  commencement  of  1847  ;  in 
the  spring  I  think. 

Ques. — What  opportunity  had  you  to  write  to  Tepic  after  Walkin- 
shaw left  and  before  Alexander  Forbes  arrived  ? 

Ans. — I  do  not  now  recollect. 

Ques. — Were  there  any  ? 

Ans. — I  am  unable  to  state. 

Ques. — In  what  vessel  did  Walkinshaw  return  to  California  with 
Alexander  Forbes  ? 

Ans. — The  British  schooner  "  William. " 

Ques. — How  is  it  that  you  can  remember  what  vessel  left  before  the 
date  of  that  letter  and  that  it  was  the  same  vessel  that  returned  a 
month  or  two  later,  and  cannot  form  even  a  conjecture  of  what  vessel 
it  was  by  which  that  letter  was  sent,  or  of  any  vessel  leaving  about 
that  time  ? 

Ans. — The  fact  of  the  arrival  of  the  schooner  William  is  impressed 
on  my  memory  from  the  circumstance  of  her  having  been  seized  by 
Com.  Biddle  when  she  arrived  in  Monterey.  I  went  there  officially  to 
represent  to  him  her  neutrality.  She  was  condemned  but  subsequently 
allowed  to  depart,  and  subsequently  returned,  I  don't  know  under 
what  flag  or  how. 

Ques. — Please  name  all  the  British  ships  which  arrived  in  or  left 
the  ports  of  Upper  California  during  1847,  which  came  to  your  knowl- 
edge as  British  Vice  Consul. 

Ans. — It  is  impossible  after  so  long  a  period  of  time  to  recollect.  I 
do  not  remember  any. 

Ques. — Then  I  understand  you  to  say  that  you  have  no  idea  when 
or  how  that  letter  got  out  of  California  to  Mr.  Alexander  Forbes. 

Ans. — I  don't  recollect. 

Ques.— Look  at  letter  "  0.  H.  X.  No.  1,"  dated  Jan.  30th  1846, 
and  state  whether  means  of  communication  between  San  Bias  and  the 
ports  of  California  were  frequeut  or  unfrequent  at  that  time. 

Ans. — They  were  unfrequent. 

Ques. — Read  that  letter  and  see  if  it  will  aid  you  to  recollect  what 
opportunity  you  had  of  sending  letters  next  after  its  date. 


484 

Ans. — I  don't  recollect. 

Ques. — Do  you  recollect  of  having  had  any  between  that  date  and 
the  day  Andres  Castillero  left  the  country  ? 

Ans. — I  do  not. 

Ques. — Was  there  any  at  all  ? 

Ans. — I  think  not ;  at  all  events,  from  this  part  of  the  coast. 

Ques. — Yesterday  you  were  shown  a  sworn  answer  in  Chancery 
made  by  you.  Was  Mr.  Wm.  E.  Barron,  one  of  the  co-defendants,  in 
the  country  at  that  time  ? 

Ans. — I  am  not  certain  whether  he  was  or  not. 

Ques. — As  far  as  you  were  concerned,  what  was  the  result  of  the 
suit  ? 

(It  is  admitted  that  he  still  remains  a  defendant  in  the  Equity 
suit,  and  that  a  verdict  of  acquittal  was  entered  in  his  favor  in  the 
ejectment  suit,  on  proof  that  he  had  no  interest  in  the  premises,  and 
that  an  injunction  was  refused  as  prayed  for  in  the  Equity  suit.) 

Ques. — After  you  were  acquitted  in  the  suit  at  law,  were  you  ever 
spoken  to  to  become  a  witness  in  that  suit ;  if  so,  by  whom  ? 

Ans. — I  don't  recollect  any  person  asking  me  to  testify. 

Ques. — Why  was  it  that  you,  who  had  no  interest  in  the  mine, 
answered  so  much  at  length,  and  why  did  you  not  simply  disclaim  any 
interest  in  the  matter  ? 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans. — As  far  as  I  recollect  I  declined  to  answer,  but  it  was  inti- 
mated to  me  that  I  was  interested  on  account  of  previous  rents  and 
profits,  and  owing  to  my  previous  relations  with  parties  interested  I 
did  not  like  to  refuse. 

(Foregoing  answer  obj  ?cted  to  on  the  ground  that  Defendant  Forbes' 
obligation  to  answer  is  a  matter  of  law,  and  the  above  question  asks 
the  witness'  opinion  as  to  his  legal  obligation.) 

Ques. — What  was  the  character  of  Weekes,  Alcalde,  for  intelli 
gence  and  sobriety  and  education  ? 

(Objected  to  as  tending  to  impeach  the  character  of  Weekes,  a 
witness  for  United  States.) 

Ans. — He  is  a  man  of  limited  education,  addicted  to  intemperance 
at  times,  nevertheless  intelligent  and  honest. 

Ques. — In  what  capacity  did  he  come  to  this  country  ? 

Ans. — I  think  as  an  ordinary  seaman. 

Ques. — Is  the  Mr.  McNamara  mentioned  in  letter  "  F.  No.  3.  0. 


485 

H.  No.  18,"  the  Irish  priest  of  that  name  who  had  the  grant  for  the 
whole  valley  of  San  Joaquin  ? 

Ans. — He  is  the  same  individual  who  attempted  to  get  that  grant 
from  the  Departmental  Gov't. 

Ques. — Do  you  know  any  thing  of  this  "  power"  spoken  of  in  this 
letter  ? 

Ans. — I  know  he  had  a  power  of  attorney  from  the  information  he 
gave  me,  and  again  from  Padre  Real,  and  subsequently  from  Mr. 
Alexander  Forbes. 

Ques. — Was  Gen.  Jose*  Castro  a  party  constituent  to  that  power  ? 

Ans. — I  believe  he  was. 

Ques. — Where  was  it  executed,  according  to  your  aforesaid  infor- 
mation ? 

Ans. — In  Monterey. 

Ques. — When  ? 

Ans. — In  June  1846. 

Ques. — Did  McNainara  arrive  as  early  as  that  in  Monterey  ? 

Ans. — He  did. 

Ques. — When  Gen. '  Castro  retreated  from  Upper  California,  do 
you  know  of  his  having  left  any  blank  signatures  in  this  State,  if  so 
with  whom  ? 

(Objected  to  as  irrelevant.) 

Ans. — I  saw  in  the  hands  of  Padre  Real,  blank  sheets  of  paper 
with  Castro's  signature  at  the  end  of  the  last  page. 

Ques. — Do  you  know  of  any  one  or  more  of  them  having  been 
filled  up  ;  if  so,  by  whom,  and  for  what  purpose  ? 

Ans. — I  do  know  that  one  sheet  was  used  by  the  said  Padre  Real, 
for  the  purpose  of  renouncing  his  right  to  the  donation  of  his  share  in 
the  mine.  This  was  addressed  to  Jose  Castro,  the  representative  of 
Castillero.  An  acceptance  of  this  was  written  above  Castro's  signa- 
ture. The  renunciation  was  made,  because  Real  being  a  "  regu- 
lar," was  prohibited  by  the  ordenanzas  from  holding  an  interest  in 
a  mine. 

Ques. — Who  obtained  this  renunciation,  and  for  what  purpose  ? 

(Objected  to,  as  irrelevant,  and  because  offered  to  show  general 
character  of  Padre  Real,  and  to  explain  the  policy  of  Alexander  For- 
bes, alluded  to  by  the  witness,  as  declared  among  other  objects  by 
counsel  for  the  U.  S.) 

Ans. — I  think  it  was  suggested  to  Padre  Real  by  Mr.  Walkinshaw, 
that  a  renunciation  of  his  interest  was  necessary,  because  the  ordenan- 
zas prohibited  a  "  regular"  from  holding  an  interest  in  a  mine,  and  he 


486 

having  received  this  donation  from  Castillero,  renounced  it  in  favor  ot 
his  donor.  The  reason  why  it  was  communicated  to  Castro,  in  the 
manner  i  have  stated,  was  because  Castro  was  not  in  California. 

Ques. — What  was  the  date  affixed  to  the  papers  ? 

Ans. — I  don't  know. 

Ques. — Was  it  made  as  of  a  time  when  Castro  was  here  ? 

Ans. — I  cannot  state. 

Ques. — Do  you  know  why  Walkinshaw  interested  himself  to  procure 
this  renunciation  ? 

Ans. — It  was  understood  that  Padre  Real,  as  agent  of  Castillero, 
should  sell  three  barras  to  Alexander  Forbes. 

Ques. — Are  those  the  three  shares  which  appear  by  the  deeds  to 
have  been  sold  to  Forbes  ? 

Ans. — They  are  the  three  shares  sold  by  Real  to  Alexander 
Forbes. 

Ques. — Do  you  know  of  Real's  filling  up  any  other  blank  ? 

Ans. — I  do  not. 

Ques. — Did  you  ever  see  the  contract  of  avio  which  Alexander 
Forbes  speaks  of  having  made  in  letter  "  F.  No.  3.  0.  H.  No.  18  ?" 

Ans. — I  don't  recolledt  of  having  seen  it  until  I  received  it  at  the 
end  of  1849  or  beginning  of  1850.  I  mean  the  paper  called  "  Hab- 
ilitacion,"  spoken  of  to  me  in  the  letter  of  Dec.  1,  1849. 

Ques. — Your  ratification  of  the  contract  is  of  a  date  prior  to  your 
receipt  of  the  document,  is  it  not  ? 

Ans. — It  is. 

Ques. — When  you  ratified  the  contract  of  avio,  you  had  therefore 
never  seen  any  copy  of  that  contract  in  which  was  set  out  at  large 
the  document  signed  Castillo  Lanzas,  called  a  grant  by  claimants  in 
this  case  ? 

Ans. — I  had  not  seen  any  such.  Mr.  Walkinshaw  presented  me 
with  a  draft  of  a  ratification  from  which  I  wrote  mine.  They  are 
conceived  in  about  the  same  terms. 

Ques. — The  first  time  you  ever  saw  any  ratification  of  that  avio, 
containing  the  Castillo  Lanzas  document  was  when  you  received  it  as 
aforesaid  ? 

Ans. — It  was. 

Cross-Examination  Resumed. 

Ques. — When  did  Mr.  Walkinshaw  first  arrive  in  California  ? 
AnS. — I  think  in  the  winter  of  1847,  or  the  beginning  of  1847,  I 
am  not  certain  as  to  the  date. 

Ques. — Did  he  arrive  in  January  ? 

Ans. — I  cannot  state. 

Ques. — How  long  was  he  in  charge  of  the  mine  ? 


487 

Ans. — He  was  a  short  time  in  charge  before  he  left  for  Mexico.  He 
was  absent  a  few  months  and  retained  charge  of  the  mine  until  Au- 
gust, 1849,  when  he  delivered  it  to  me. 

Ques. — Did  he  receive  a  salary  as  agent  ? 

Ans. — I  presume  he  did. 

Ques. — I  understand  you  to  have  said  that  three  declarations  were 
made  to  you  by  him  :  one  before  he  left  for  Mexico,  to  the  effect  that 
the  title  was  not  good.  The  second  was  after  his  return,  when  he  in- 
formed you  what  Alexander  Forbes  had  said  Castillero  had  said ;  and 
again,  that  duringthe  litigation  in  1849,  he  said  the  title  was  not  good, 
being  the  same  statement  substantially,  as  is  set  forth  in  his  complaints 
in  that  litigation. 

Ans. — I  did  not  mean  that  he  made  formal  declarations,  but  he  so 
expressed  himself  on  those  occasions. 

Ques. — It  appears  now,  that  when  your  letter  of  July  14,  1847, 
was  written,  Mr.  Walkinshaw  had  never  told  you  that  Castillero 
claimed  to  have  a  grant  of  two  leagues. 

Ans. — I  cannot  see  how  that  would  follow.  It  is  claimed  that  I 
have  contradicted  myself,  because  I  had  stated  that  the  first  informa- 
tion I  obtained  of  Castillero's  grant  was  from  Mr.  Walkinshaw,  but  I 
stated  I  was  not  certain  of  the  time  when  I  had  been  so  informed.  I 
did  not  state  that  Mr.  Walkinshaw's  communication  to  me  to  that 
effect,  was  posterior  to  this  date. 

Ques. — You  stated  that  you  were  positive  that  when  Mr.  Walkin- 
shaw informed  you  of  what  Alexander  Forbes  said  he  had  been  told 
by  Castillero,  it  was  after  Walkinshaw's  return  from  Mexico.  Had  he 
returned  on  the  14th  July,  1847  ? 

Ans. — I  think  I  said  he  had  so  informed  me,  to  the  best  of  my 
recollection.  Mr.  Walkinshaw  returned  subsequently  to  July  14, 
1847.  I  wish  to  state  I  was  in  error.  It  is  difficult  to  retain  in 
memory  such  events  after  the  lapse  of  ten  years. 

Ques. — Then  you  must  have  received  this  information  from  Mr. 
Walkinshaw  before  he  left  California  in  the  spring  of  1847. 

Ans .— Yes,  sir. 

Ques. — What  was  the  character  of  the  litigation  between  Walkin- 
shaw and  yourself  in  1849  ? 

Ans. — In  the  first  place,  the  character  of  the  litigation  ccmmenced 
by  Horace  Hawes,  in  connection  with  Walkinshaw,  was  a  denuncia- 
tion of  the  mine,  for  an  abandonment  claimed  to  have  occurred  while 
I  was  in  charge ;  and  the  next  suit  was  against  me  as  a  trespasser 
without  title. 

(Petition  of  Walkinshaw  in  second  suit  read.) 

Ques. — How  could  he  say  that  the  title  was  not  good  ? 


488 

Ans. — I  don't  know ;  but  I  state  it  to  be  a  positive  fact  under  oath 
that  on  the  planila  of  the  mine,  in  the  presence  of  a  civil  officer,  who 
was  restoring  me  to  the  possession,  of  which  he,  Walkinshaw.  had, 
forcibly  deprived  me,  and  of  several  others,  among  whom  was  K.  H. 
Dimmick,  former  Alcalde  of  San  Jos6,  Walkinshaw  stated  I  had  no 
title,  that  my  constituents  had  no  title,  and  that  the  property  be- 
longed to  him. 

Ques. — I  recall  to  your  attention  the  litigation.  Did  Mr.  Walkin- 
shaw therein  claim  that  there  was  no  title  by  Registry  ? 

Ans. — It  may  be  considered  there  were  two  suits,  but  in  reality 
they  were  one.  In  my  previous  answer  I  did  not  refer  to  those 
papers,  for  I  had  not  examined  them,  but  to  the  declarations  of 
Walkinshaw  publicly  made  in  and  about  San  Jose.  I  wish  further  to 
explain  that  when  he  took  a  mortgage  upon  the  Berreyesa's  property, 
it  was  to  secure  himself,  because  he  was  uncertain  and  doubtful  of  the 
title  to  the  mine. 

Ques. — At  the  time  then  that  Mr.  Walkinshaw  made  these  declara- 
tions he  had  an  adverse  interest  ? 

Ans. — I  don't  know.  He  wanted  to  have  two  strings  to  his  bow, 
and  therefore  obtained  a  mortgage  from  the  Berreyesa's. 

Ques. — Did  he  not  have  an  interest  in  the  Hawes'  denouncement  ? 

Ans. — I  think  he  was  the  principal  party  in  the  operation. 

Ques. — Was  not  Mr.  Walkinshaw  mortified  at  his  displacement  and 
his  being  superseded  by  you  ? 

Ans. — I  think  it  possible  he  may  have  had  some  feeling  on  the  sub- 
ject. But  before  he  was  superseded  he  had  acquired  the  interest  from 
Berreyesa,  and  the  actual  abandonment  of  the  mine  had  taken  place. 

Ques. — Did  not  the  brig  Lady  Shaw  Stewart  and  the  schooner 
Santa  Cruz  sail  from  Monterey  for  the  southern  coasts  in  the  months 
of  July  or  August,  1847  ? 

Ans. — I  don't  recollect.  It  is  possible  ;  but  if  so,  it  has  escaped 
my  memory. 

Ques. — Look  at  letter  now  shown  you  and  state  in  whose  handwrit- 
ing it  is? 

Ans. — It  is  mine  ;  my  signature.  I  wrote  it  at  its  date.  I  sent  it 
to  Mr.  Alexander  Forbes.  It  is  endorsed  in  handwriting  of  Walkin- 
shaw. 

(Letter  offered  in  evidence.     Objected.     Marked   "  0.   H.   X. 

No.  7*.") 

Ques. — Did  Mr.  Walkinshaw  show  yon  any  documents  besides  the 
draft  of  the  ratification  previously  spoken  of  ? 

Ans. — No,  sir.  When  I  asked  him  in  1849  to  show  me  his  docu- 
ments, he  swore  he  hadn't  any. 


489 

(Letter  dated  7th  January,  1847,  read  to  witness — from  Alexander 
Forbes  to  witness.) 

Ques. — When  did  McNamara  leave  California  ? 

Ans. — In  the  latter  part  of  July,  1846.  He  wTent  to  the  Sand- 
wich Islands.  I  received  a  letter  from  him  at  the  Islands,  dated, 
I  think,  in  October,  1846.  He  arrived  in  Mexico  at  the  latter  part 
of  1846. 

Ques. — Have  you  any  reason  to  believe  he  was  not  in  Tepic  on  the 
28th  November,  1846  ? 

Ans. — I  have  not. 

Ques. — When  did  Castro  leave  California  ? 

Ans. — Soon  after  the  occupation  by  the  Americans.  He  returned 
in  1847  or  1848 ;  I  could'nt  say  when ;  he  was  a  long  time  absent.  . 

Ques. — Do  you  remember  to  have  seen  the  signature  of  Castro  on 
the  top  of  the  second  page  ? 

Ans. — I  cannot  state  its  precise  position.  My  impression  is  it  was 
on  bottom  of  third  or  fourth  page. 

(Letter  "  F.  No.  9,  0.  H.  No.  7,"  read  to  witness.) 

Ques. — Did  you  examine  at  Monterey  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining 
that  document  ? 

Ans. — I  did  not. 

Ques. — When  did  you  first  show  this  letter  to  Mr.  Laurencel  ? 

Ans. — I  think  last  January. 

Ques. — Look  at  pencil  memorandum  of  "  F.  No#.  6,  0.  H.  No. 
20,"  in  whose  handwriting  is  it  ?  to  what  does  it  refer  ? 

Ans. — It  is  in  my  handwriting,  and  refers  to  the  shares  to  be  divided 
out  of  the  mine  of  San  Antonio,  which  I  was  commencing  to  work. 
I  must  casually  have  made  the  memorandum  on  this  piece  of  paper. 

Ques. — Did  not  in  fact  Padre  Real  derive  a  benefit  from  the  sale 
to  Alexander  Forbes  ? 

Ans. — I  presume  that  what  money  was  paid  he  received,  although 
he  told  me  he  had  been  swindled. 

Ques. — Do  you  remember  having  testified  in  the  case  of  Charles 
Fossat  on  behalf  of  the  U.  S.  ? 

Ans. — I  do. 

Ques. — At  whose  instance  was  that  deposition  given  ? 

Ans. — I  don't  know  wrhether  at  that  of  Mr.  Crittenden  or  Mr. 
Laurencel. 

Ques. — Was  it  before  or  after  your  agreement  with  Laurencel  ? 

Ans. — After.     But  it  was  not  conditioned  or  consequent  upon  that 
arrrangement.     If  I  had  not  made  any  arrangement,  I  should  still 
have  given  that  testimony. 
39 


490 
Direct  Resumed. 

Ques. — Why  did  you  not  go  to  Monterey  to  look  for  the  document 
spoken  of  by  Mr.  Alexander  Forbes  in  his  letter  to  you  ? 

Ans. — I  thought  it  would  be  useless. 

Ques.— Why? 

Ans. — Because  I  did'nt  think  it  was  there. 

Ques. — Why  didn't  you  think  it  was  there  ? 

Ans. — I  thought  he  might  have  been  mistaken. 

Ques.— In  the  letter  3d  February,  1850,  ("  F.  No.  11,  0.  H.  No. 
9,")  the  word  "  found  "  is  underscored,  and  the  words  "  very  pri- 
vate," written  on  the  top.  Was  that  word  underscored,  and  the 
words  written  on  the  top,  when  you  received  it  ? 

Ans. — I  believe  they  were. 

Ques. — Do  you  know  of  any  difficulty  in  adding  those  wTords  after 
the  press  copy  was  taken  ? 

Ans. — None,  whatever. 

JAS.  ALEX.  FORBES. 

Subscribed  before  me,  this  19th  Dec,  1857. 

OGDEN  HOFFMAN, 
U.  S.  Dist.  Judge. 
Filed  December  19th,  1857. 

J.  EDGAR  GRYMES, 

Deputy. 


Exhibits  to  Deposition  of  Jas.  Alex.  Forbes. 

0.  H.  No.  1. 

Vide  "  F.  No.  20— J.  A.  Monroe."  Page  390 

0.  H.  No.  2. 
Vide  "  F.  No.  21— J.  A.  Monroe."  Page  391 

0.  H.  No.  3. 
Vide  "  F.  No.  23— J.  A.  Monroe."  Page  392 

0.  H.  No.  4. 
Vide  u  F.  No.  22— J.  A.  Monroe."  Page  393 

O.  H.  No.  5. 
Vide  "  F.  No.  16— J.  A.  Monroe."  Page  394 


491 


0.  H.  No.  6. 
Vide  "  F.  No.  7-J.  A.  Monroe."  Page  395 

0.  H.  No.  7. 
Vide  "  F.  No.  9— J.  A.  Monroe."  Page  396 

0.  H.  No.  8. 
Vide  "  F.  No.  10— J.  A.  Monroe."  Page  397 

0.  H.  No.  9. 
Vide  "  F.  No.  LI— J.  A.  Monroe."  Page  400 

0.  H.  No.  9. 
Vide  "  F.  No.  24— J.  A.  Monroe."  Page  403 

0.  H.  No.  10. 
Vide  "  F.  No.  12— J.  A.  Monroe."  Page  404 

0.  H.  No.  11. 
Vide  "  F.  No.  14— J.  A.  Monroe."  Page  404 

0.  H.  No.  12. 
Vide  "  F.  No.  13— J.  A.  Monroe."  Page  405 

0.  H.  No.  13. 
Vide  "  F.  No.  15— J.  A.  Monroe."  Page  406 

0.  H.  No.  14. 
Vide  "  F.  No.  151— J.  A.  Monroe."  Page  399 

0.  H.  No.  15. 
Vide  "  F.  No.  17— J.  A.  Monroe."  Page  407 

0.  H.  No.  16. 
Vide  "  F.  No.  1-^T.  A.  Monroe."  Page  382 

0.  H.  No.  17. 
Vide  "F.  No.  2— J.  A.  Monroe."  Page  382 

0.  H.  No.  18. 
Vide  "  F.  No.  3— J.  A.  Monroe."  Page  383 

0.  H.  No.  19. 
Vide  «  F.  No.  4— J.  A.  Monroe."  Page  384 


492 

0.  H.  No.  20. 
Vide  "  F.  No.  6— J.  A.  Monroe."  Page  386 

0.  H.  No.  21. 
Vide  "  F.  No.  19— J.  A.  Monroe."  Page  385 

0.  H.  No.  22. 
Vide  "  F.  No.  8— J.  A.  Monroe."  Page  388 

0.  H.  No.  23. 
Vide  "  F.  No.  5— J.  A.  Monroe."  Page  386 

0.  H.  No.  24. 
Vide  "  F.  No.  25— J.  A.  Monroe."  Page  387 

0.  H.  No.  25. 
Vide  "  F.  No.  26— J.  A.  Monroe,"  facing  Page  388 
Being  "  pertenencias  and  lines  of  mine  of  New  Almaden, 
Jan'y  20,  1848." 

0.  H.  No.  26. 
Vide  "  F.  No.  27— J.  A.  Monroe."  Page  408 

0.  H.  No.  27. 
Vide  "  F.  No.  18— J.  A.  Monroe."  Page  390 

0.  H.  No.  28. 
Vide  "  H.  L.  No.  3."  Page  172 

0.  H.  No.  28}. 
Vide  "  H.  L.  No.  1."  Page  151 


0.  H.  No.  29. 

DEED — JOSE  CASTRO  TO  ALEX.  FORBES. 

Translation  of  "  H.   L.  No.  1,"  page   151. 

In  the  City  of  Tepic,  on  the  first  of  March  one  thousand  eight 
hundred  and  forty-seven  before  me  the  notary  and  witnesses,  Don  Jose* 
Castro,  dwelling  transiently  in  this  place,  and  whom  I  certify  I  know 
declared :  that  he  is  the  lawful  owner  of  four  "  varras"  in  a  Silver  mine 


493 

with  alloy  of  gold  and  quicksilver,  situated  in  appurtenances  of  the 
Rancho  of  Don  Jose*  Reyes  Berreyesa,  in  the  Jurisdiction  of  the  Pue- 
blo of  San  Jose  of  Guadalupe,  of  the  Territory  of  Upper  California 
in  the  second  District  of  Monterey,  as  appears  in  the  Archives  of  that 
place,  from  whence  was  extracted,  an  extra-judicial  copy  of  the  con- 
tract of  that  company,  which  document  exhibits  itself  properly  certi- 
fied herewith,  and  which  certifying  of  said  instrument  says  to  the  let- 
ter as  follows : 

Deed  of  Articles  of  Copartnership  which  the  Senor  Don  An- 
partnership.  <jres  Castillero,  Captain  of  permanent  cavalry,  enters  into 
with  the  Commanding  General,  Don  Jose  Castro,  the  Messers. 
Secundino  Robles,  Theodore  Robles,  and  a  voluntary  cession,  which 
the.  partners  have  made  forever,  to  the  Rev.  Father  Friar  Jose 
Maria  del  Refugio  Suares  del  Real,  in  a  Silver  mine,  with  alloy  of  gold 
and  quicksilver,  in  the  Rancho  of  Jose*  Reyes  Berreyesa,  in  the  Juris- 
diction of  the  Pueblo  of  San  Jose  of  Guadalupe. 

Article  first. — The  Senor  Don  Andres  Castillero  conforming  alto- 
gether, with  the  mining  ordinance,  creates  a  genuine  company  forever, 
with  the  aforesaid  gentlemen,  in  this  form.  The  half  of  the  mine, 
which  is  what  he  can  dispose  of,  shall  be  divided  into  three  shares,  in 
this  way.  Four  "  varras"  to  the  Senor  Commanding  General.  Four 
varras  to  the  Messrs.  Secundino  and  Theodore  Robles,  and  the  other 
Four,  to  the  Reverend  Father  Friar  Jose  Maria  del  Refugio  Suares 
del  Real,  as  a  perpetual  Donation. 

Article  Second. — None  of  the  partners  shall  be  able  to  sell  or  alien- 
ate, any  of  their  shares,  so  that  he  who  should  verify  said  alienation, 
shall  lose  his  right,  the  same  accruing  to  the  remaining  partners. 

Article  Third. — The  expenses  shall  be  borne  in  proportion  to  the 
shares,  keeping  a  just  account  of  the  same. 

Article  fourth. — In  strict  conformity  with  the  mining  Ordinance, 
whatever  difficulty  may  arise,  shall  be  settled  by  the  partners. 

Article  fifth. — Don  Andres  Castillero,  shall  direct  the  operations, 
expenses,  and  works  of  the  mine,  and  in  default  of  him  Father  Friar 
Jose*  Maria  Del  Refugio  Suares  del  Real. 

Articie  sixth. — There  shall  not  be  extracted  of  the  products,  a 
greater  quantity  than  what  is  needed  for  the  arrangement  of  the  busi- 
ness, until  the  operations  are  settled,  and  whatever  quantity  that  is 
extracted,  has  to  be  with  the  consent  of  all  the  partners,  until  the  final 
arrangement  of  the  business. 

Article  seventh. — This  contract  shall  be  ratified  in  the  presence  of 
the  Prefect  of  the  Second  District,  Don  Manuel  Castro,  depositing  the 
original  document  in  the  Archive  of  that  place,  and  giving  a  certified 
copy  thereof  for  security  to  those  interested. 


494 

Mission  of  Santa  Clara,  second  of  November,  one  thousand  eight 
hundred  and  forty-five. 

ANDRES  CASTILLERO. 

For  the  Commanding  General,  Don  Jose  Castro. 

ANDRES  CASTILLERO. 
FRIAR  JOSE  MARIA  del  REFUGIO  SUARES  del  REAL. 

For  Secundino  and  Theodore  Robles. 

FRANCISCO  ARSE. 

This  is  a  true  copy  of  the  original,  and  to  which  I  advert.  Mission 
of  Santa  Clara,  December  eighth,  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and 
forty-five. 

MANUEL  CASTRO. 

ANTONIO  MARIA  PICO. 

This  is  a  copy.  Mexico,  December  fifth,  one  thousand  eight  hun- 
dred and  forty-six. 

ANDRES  CASTILLERO. 


The  sale  That  by  the  foregoing  and  as  a  shareholder  in  that  mine, 
follows.  0f  the  varras  which  belong  to  him,  and  that  manner  and  form, 
which  is  according  to  law,  he  stipulates  :  for  himself,  and  in  the  name 
of  his  heirs  and  successors,  or  of  any  right  that  should  be  claimed  un- 
der them,  he  hereby  sells  and  alienates  forever  to  the  Seilor  Don 
Alejandro  Forbes  of  this  vicinity,  and  he  agrees  for  himself  and  his 
representatives,  to  sell  one  varra  of  those  which  belong  to  him,  in  the 
mine  before  referred  to,  and  which  is  known  by  the  name  of  Santa 
Clara.  That  he  transfers  to  the  purchaser,  the  direct  and  absolute 
possession  of  the  aforesaid  varra,  with  all  the  uses,  profits  and  appur- 
tenances, with  all  and  every  other  right,  to  the  same  belonging  and 
appertaining,  inasmuch  all  of  which,  he  cedes  and  transfers  to  the 
aforesaid  Mr.  Forbes,  and  the  subscriber  declares,  that  the  varra  which 
he  alienates,  is  free  from  all  incumbrance,  implied  or  expressed,  as  he 
thus  warrants  the  same,  and  that  the  sale  is  for  the  sum  of  eight  hun- 
dred Dollars,  which  he  acknowledges  to  have  received  to  his  entire 
satisfaction,  and  as  this  amount  does  not  appear  presently,  he  re- 
nounces the  benefit  of  Law  9,  title  1st,  section  5th,  and  the  two  years 
which  are  allowed  for  proof  of  the  receipt  thereof,  which  he  grants  as 
if  they  were  passed,  covenanting  from  now,  the  most  firm  and  efficient 
warranty,  that  may  conduce  to  the  security  of  purchaser. 

He  likewise  affirms,  that  sum  of  Eight  hundred  Dollars,  in  which  he 
sells  that  varra,  is  the  value  of  the  same,  and  that  notwithstanding  it 
should  be  worth  more,  of  the  overplus,  whatever  the  sum,  be  it  small 


495 

or  great,  he  grants  and  donates  the  same  to  the  purchaser  and  his  rep- 
resentatives according  to  Law,  and  he  renounces  the  Law  2,  title  1st, 
Book  10  of  the  latest  Digest,  and  his  benefit  of  the  four  years  in  which 
to  ask  the  recision  of  this  contract,  or  the  completion  of  the  just  value 
of  the  thing  sold :  which  term  he  grants,  as  if  the  same  were  passed. 
In  consequence  whereof,  he  dispossesses  himself,  abandons  and  parts 
with  whatever  right,  which  he  may  have  had,  and  could  have,  to  the 
aforesaid  varra,  so  that  as  belonging  to  the  purchaser,  and  acquired 
with  the  legitimate  title,  he  may  direct  the  share  which  belongs  to 
him,  and  he  may  take  possession  thereof,  Judicially  or  extra-judicially 
by  virtue  of  this  instrument.  Likewise  the  subscriber  hereto  warrants 
the  security  and  guaranty  of  this  sale,  also  that  he  will  never  use  as 
an  impediment  to  it,  the  second  Article  of  the  Partnership  contract, 
which  is  heretofore  herein  inserted,  and  he  covenants,  that  his  part- 
ners, shall  ratify  and  consent  to  this  sale,  as  the  subscriber  hereto  has 
ratified  and  consented,  and  as  they  also  have  heretofore  done,  and  to 
this  effect  he  ratifies  the  security  and  guaranty  that  offers. 

And  Mr.  Alexander  Forbes  being  present,  whom  I  cer- 
tify I  know,  and  acquainted  with  the  contents  of  this  in- 
strument, declared :  that  for  himself  and  for  his  representatives,  he 
accepts  the  sale  which  is  made  to  him,  under  the  guaranty  hereby  of- 
fered, and  he  remains  bound  as  a  shareholder  of  the  mine,  in  the  varra 
that  is  sold  to  him,  to  comply  with  the  rest  of  the  partners,  in  that 
which  is  required  of  him,  by  the  ordinance  pertaining  thereto.  And 
for  the  fulfilment  of  the  foregoing,  the  subscribers  hereto,  pledge  their 
property  in  possession  and  in  expectancy,  with  submission  and  renunci- 
ation of  the  laws  and  privileges  that  may  be  in  their  favor  and  defence, 
and  acknowledge  themselves  as  strictly  bound,  as  if  it  were  by  sentence 
passed,  in  authority  of  a  final  judgment. 

And  they  signed,  being  witnesses  Don  Ignacio  Mariscal,  Don  San- 
tos Gallegos,  and  Don  Francisco  de  los  Rios,  who  I  certify  were 
present. 

JOSE  CASTRO. 

ALEJANDRO  FORBES. 

JESUS  VEGAR. 


second  in-  In  the  City  of  Tepic,  on  the  twelfth  of  April,  one  thous- 
denture.  an(j  G\^  hundred  and  forty  seven,  before  me  the  Notary 
and  witnesses,  Don  Jose  Castro  a  resident  in  this  place,  and  whom  I 
certify  I  know,  declared  ;  that  he  is  the  legal  owner  of  four  varras  in  a 
silver  mine  with  alloy  of  gold  and  quicksilver,  situated  in  appurtenan- 
ces of  the  Rancho  of  Don  Jose  Reyes  Berreyesa,  in  the  Jurisdiction  of 
the  Pueblo  of  San  Jose  of  Guadalupe,  in  the  Territory  of  Upper  Cali- 


496 

fornia,  in  the  Second  District  of  Monterey,  as  appeared  in  the  Archives 
of  that  place,  from  which  is  taken  an  extrajudicial  copy  of  the  agree- 
ment of  that  company,  which  document  presents  itself  properly  certi- 
fied herewith,  and  which  certifying  of  said  instrument,  says  to  the  let- 
ter, as  follows : 

Deed  of  part-       Articles  of  Copartnership,  which  the  Seilor  Don  Andres 
nership.  Castillero,  Capitan,  of  permanent  cavalry,  enters  into,  with 

the  Commanding  General,  Don  Jose  Castro,  the  Messrs  Secundino 
Robles,  and  Theodore  Robles,  and  a  voluntary  cession,  which  the  part- 
ners have  made  forever,  to  the  Rev.  Father,  Friar  Jose  Maria  del  Re- 
fugio Suares  del  Real,  in  a  Silver  mine,  with  alloy,  of  gold  and  quick- 
silver, in  the  Rancho  of  Don  Jose  Reyes  Berreyesa,  in  the  Jurisdic- 
tion of  the  Pueblo  of  San  Jose'  of  Guadalupe. 

Article  First. — The  Senor  Don  Andres  Castillero,  in  strict  confor- 
mity with  the  mining  ordinance,  creates  a  genuine  company,  perpetu- 
ally, with  the  aforesaid,  Gentlemen,  in  this  form.  The  half  of  the  mine, 
which  is  that  of  which  he  can  dispose,  shall  be  divided  into  three  shares, 
in  this  form.  Four  varraa  to  the  Senor  Commanding  General,  Four 
varras  to  the  Messrs.  Secundino  and  Theodore  Robles,  and  the  other 
four,  to  the  Reverend  Father,  Friar  Jose  Maria  del  Refugio  Suares  del 
Real,  as  a  perpetual  Donation. 

Article  Second. — None  of  the  partners  shall  be  able  to  sell  or  alien- 
ate any  of  their  shares,  so  that  he  who  should  verify  said  alienation, 
shall  lose  his  right,  the  same  accruing  to  the  remaining  partners. 

Article  Third. — The  expenses  shall  be  born  in  proportion  to  the 
shares,  keeping  a  just  account  of  the  same. 

Artible  Fourth. — In  strict  conformity  with  the  provisions  of  the 
mining  ordinance,  whatever  difficulty  may  arise,  shall  be  settled  by  the 
partners. 

Article  Fifth. — Don  Andres  Castillero  shall  direct  the  operations, 
expenses,  and  works  of  the  mine,  and  in  default  of  him  the  Rev.  Fa- 
ther, Friar  Jose  Maria  del  Refugio  Suares  del  Real. 

Article  Sixth. — There  shall  not  be  extracted,  of  the  products,  a 
greater  quantity  than  what  is  needed  for  the  arrangement  of  the  busi- 
ness, until  the  operations  are  arranged,  and  whatever  quantity  is  taken 
out,  has  to  be  with  consent  of  all  the  partners,  until  the  final  arrange- 
ment of  the  business. 

Article  Seventh. — This  contract  shall  be  ratified  before  the  Prefect 
of  the  Second  District,  Don  Manuel  Castro,  depositing  the  original 
document  in  the  Archive  of  that  place,  and  giving  a  certified  copy  of 
the  same,  for  the  security  of  the  parties  interested. 

Mission  of  Santa  Clara,  second  of  November,  one  thousand  eight 
hundred  and  forty  five. 

ANDRES  CASTILLERO. 


497 

For  the  Commanding  General,  Don  Jose  Castro, 

ANDRES  CASTILLERO. 
Friar  JOSE  MARIA  del  REFUGIO  SUARES  del  REAL. 

For  Secundino  and  Theodore  Robles, 

FRANCISCO  ARSE. 

This  is  a  true  copy  of  the  original,  and  to  which  I  advert. 
Mission  of  Santa  Clara,  December  the  eighth,  one  thousand  eight 
hundred  and  forty  five. 

MANUEL  CASTRO. 

ANTONIO  MARIA  PICO. 

This  is  a  copy. 

Mexico  December  fifth,  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  forty  six. 

ANDRES  CASTILLERO. 

That  in  consequence  of  the  foregoing,  the  affiant  proves,  that  in  that 
mine  he  has  had  an  interest  of  four  varras,  and  he  now  declares  that 
he  has  heretofore  sold  one  to  the  Senor  Don  Alejandro  Forbes,  by 
Deed,  which  he  executed  to  him  the  first  of  March,  of  this  year,  before 
this  authority,  (as  is  certified  to  be  contained  in  the  Record.)  That 
remaining,  inasmuch,  the  owner  of  three  varras,  at  a  time  it  agrees 
with  his  interests  to  sell  another  of  them,  Now  therefore,  in  that  man- 
ner and  form,  most  in  accordance  with  law,  he  stipulates,  that  for  him- 
self, and  in  the  name  of  his  heirs  and  successors,  or  of  any  right  claim- 
ed under  them,  he  sells,  bargains  and  alienates  forever,  to  the  same 
Senor  Don  Alejandro  Forbes,  of  this  vicinity  and  commerce,  for  him 
and  his  representatives,  one  varra,  of  the  three,  that  as  yet  belong  to 
this  subscriber,  in  the  mine  before  referred  to,  and  which  is  known  by 
the  name  of  Santa  Clara.  That  he  transfers  to  the  purchaser,  the  di- 
rect and  absolute  possession  of  the  aforesaid  varra,  with  all  the  uses, 
profits  and  appurtenances,  with  all  and  every  other  right,  to  the  same 
belonging  and  appertaining,  inasmuch,  all  of  which,  he  cedes  and  trans- 
fers to  the  aforesaid  Mr.  Forbes.  And  the  vendor  declares  that  the 
varra  which  he  alienates,  is  free  from  all  incumbrance,  implied  or  ex- 
pressed, as  he  thus  warrants  the  same,  and  that  the  sale  is  made,  for 
the  sum  of  one  thousand  dollars,  which  he  acknowledges  to  have  re- 
ceived, to  his  entire  satisfaction,  and  as  this  amount  does  not  appear 
presently,  he  renounces  law  9,  title  1st,  section  5th,  and  the  two  years 
which  are  allowed,  for  the  proof  of  the  receipt  of  the  same,  which  he 
grants  as  if  they  were  passed,  covenanting  from  now  the  most  firm  and 
efficient  guaranty,  that  may  conduce  to  the  security  of  the  purchaser. 
He  likewise  afiirms  that  the  sum  of  one  thousand  Dollars,  in  which  he 


498 

sells  that  varra,  is  the  value  of  the  same,  and  that  notwithstanding,  it 
should  be  worth  more,  of  the  overplus  whatever,  be  the  sum  small  or 
great,  he  grants  and  donates  the  same  to  the  purchaser,  and  his  repre- 
sentatives according  to  law,  and  he  renounces,  Law  2,  Title  1st,  Book 
10,  of  the  latest  Digest,  and  his  benefit  of  the  four  years,  in  which  to 
ask  the  recision  of  this  contract,  or  the  completion  of  the  just  value  of 
the  thing  sold,  which  term  he  grants,  as  if  the  same  were  passed. 

In  consequence  whereof,  he  dispossesses  himself,  abandons,  and  quit 
claims,  whatever  right  which  he  may  have  had,  and  could  have  to  the 
aforesaid  varra,  so  that  as  belonging  to  the  purchaser,  and  acquired 
with  legitimate  title,  he  may  direct  the  share,  which  belongs  to  him, 
and  may  take  possession  thereof  either  Judicially  or  Extra-judicially, 
by  virtue  of  this  instrument. 

Likewise  the  subscriber  hereto  warrants  the  security  and  guaranty 
of  this  sale,  also,  that  it  shall  never  serve  as  an  impediment  thereto, 
the  second  clause  of  the  Articles  of  Copartnership,  and  which  is  here- 
tofore herein  inserted,  inasmuch  as  he  covenants  that  his  partners  shall 
ratify  and  consent  to  this  sale,  as  he,  the  subscriber  hereto,  has  alrea- 
dy heretofore  done,  by  virtue  of  the  sales  made  by  his  partners.  And 
to  this  effect,  he  ratifies  the  security,  and  guaranty  that  he  offers. 

And  Mr.  Alexander  Forbes  being  present,  whom  I  certify 
I  know,  and  being  acquainted  with  the  contents  of  this  doc- 
ument, declared :  that  for  himself,  and  for  his  representatives,  he  ac- 
cepts the  sale  which  is  made  to  him,  under  the  warranty,  which  is  of- 
fered, and  he  remains  bound,  as  a  shareholder  of  the  mine,  in  the  var- 
ra which  is  sold  to  him,  to  comply  with  the  rest  of  the  partners,  in  that 
which  is  required  of  him  by  the  ordinance  relating  thereto.  And  for 
the  fulfillment  of  the  foregoing,  the  subscribers  hereto,  pledge  their 
property,  in  possession  or  expectancy,  with  submission  and  renuncia- 
tion, of  the  laws  and  privileges,  that  may  be  in  their  favor  and  defence, 
and  acdnowledge  themselves  as  strictly  bound,  as  if  it  were,  by  sentence 
passed,  in  authority  of  a  final  judgment,  and  they  signed,  being  wit- 
nesses, Don  Ignacio  Mariscal,  Don  Santos  Gallegos,  and  Don  Ramon 
Ponse,  who  I  certify  were  present. 

JOSE  CASTRO. 

ALEXANDER  FORBES. 

JESUS  VEGAR. 


3dDocu-  In  tne  City  of  Tepic,  on  the  16th  of  April,  one  thousand 
ment.  eight  hundred  and  forty  seven,  before  me  the  Notary  and  wit- 
nesses, the  Soiior  Don.  Jose  Castro,  a  resident  of  this  place  and  whom 
I  certify  I  know,  declared  :  that  he  has  been  the  lawful  owner  of  four 


499 

varras  in  a  silver  mine,  with  alloy  of  gold  and  Quicksilver,  situated  in 
appurtenances  of  the  Pueblo  of  San  Jose  of  Guadalupe,  of  the  Terri- 
tory of  Upper  California,  in  the  Second  District  of  Monterey,  as  ap- 
pears in  the  archives  of  that  place,  and  from  whence  was  extracted  an 
extra-judicial  copy  of  the  contract  of  that  company,  which  document, 
exhibits  itself  properly  certified  to  herewith,  and  which  certifying  of 
such  instrument,  says  to  the  letter,  that  which  follows  : 

need  of  part-  Articles  of  Copartnership  which  the  Seiior  Don  Andres 
ncrship.  Castillero,  Captain  of  permanent  cavalry,  enters  into,  with 
the  Seiior  Commanding  General,  Don  Jose  Castro,  the  Messrs.  Secun- 
dino  Robles,  Theodore  Robles,  and  a  voluntary  cession,  which  the  part- 
ners have  made  forever,  to  the  Reverend  Father,  Friar  Jose  Maria  del 
Refugio  Snares  del  Real,  in  a  Silver  mine,  with  alloy  of  gold  and 
Quicksilver,  in  the  Rancho  of  Don  Jose  Reyes  Berreyesa,  in  the  Juris- 
diction of  the  Pueblo  of  San  Jose  of  Guadalupe. 

Article  First. — The  Senor  Don  Andres  Castillero,  conforming 
strictly  to  the  mining  ordinance,  creates  a  genuine  company,  forev- 
er, with  the  aforesaid  Gentlemen,  in  this  form.  The  half  of  the  mine, 
which  what  he  can  dispose  of,  shall  be  divided  into  three  shares,  in  this 
form.  Four  varras  to  the  Commanding  General.  Four  varras  to  the 
Messrs.  Secundino  and  Theodore  Robles,  and  the  other  four,  to  the 
Reverend  Father,  Friar  Jose  Maria  del  Refugio  Suares  del  Real,  as  a 
perpetual  Donation. 

Article  Second. — None  of  the  partners,  shall  be  able  to  sell  or  alien- 
ate any  of  these  shares,  so  that  he  who  should  verify  said  alienation, 
shall  lose  his  right,  the  same  accruing  to  the  remaining  partners. 

Article  Third. — The  expenses  shall  be  borne  in  proportion  to  the 
shares,  keeping  a  just  account  of  the  same. 

Article  Fourth. — In  conformity  with  the  provisions  of  the  mining 
ordinance,  whatever  difficulty  may  arise,  shall  be  settled  by  the  part- 
ners. 

Article  Fifth. — Don  Andres  Castillero  shall  direct  the  operations, 
expenses,  and  works  of  the  mines,  and  in  default  of  him,  the  Rev.  Fa- 
ther, Friar  Jose  Maria  del  Refugio  Suares  del  Real. 

Article  Sixth. — There  shall  not  be  extracted  of  the  products  a  great- 
er quantity  than  what  is  needed,  for  the  arrangement  of  the  business, 
until  the  operations  are  arranged,  and  whatever  quantity  that  is  ex- 
tracted, has  to  be  with  the  consent  of  all  the  partners,  until  the  final 
arrangement  of  the  business. 

Article  Seventh. — This  contract  shall  be  ratified  in  the  presence  of 
the  Prefect  of  the  Second  District,  Don  Manuel  Castro,  depositing  the 
original  document  in  the  Archive  of  that  place,  and  giving  a  certified 
copy  thereof,  for  security,  to  the  parties  interested. 


500 

Mission  of  Santa  Clara,  second  of  November,  one  thousand  eight 
hundred  and  forty  five. 

ANDRES  CASTILLERO. 

For  the  Commanding  General, 

ANDRES  CASTILLERO. 
Friar  JOSE  MARIA  del  REFUGIO  SUARES  del  REAL. 

For  Secundino  and  Theodore  Robles, 

FRANCISCO  ARSE. 

This  is  a  true  copy  of  the  original,  and  to  which  I  advert. 
Mission  of  Santa  Clara,  December  the  eighth,  one  thousand  eight 
hundred  and  forty  five. 

MANUEL  CASTRO. 
ANTONIO  MARIA  PICO. 

This  is  a  copy. 

Mexico,  December  the  fifth,  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  forty 
six. 

ANDRES  CASTILLERO. 

The  Deed  That  by  the  foregoing,  this  affiant  proves,  that  in  that  mine 
follows.  ne  nas  kaci  an  interest  of  four  varras,  and  he  now  declares  that 
of  them  he  has  heretofore  sold  two,  to  Mr.  Alexander  Forbes,  by  Deeds 
which  he  executed  to  him,  the  first  of  March  of  this  year,  and  the 
twelfth  of  the  present  month,  before  this  authority,  (as  is  certified  to 
be  contained  in  the  Record,)  that  inasmuch,  remaining  still  the  owner 
of  two  varras,  at  a  time  it  agrees  to  his  interests,  to  sell  another  of 
them,  therefore,  in  that  manner  and  form,  which  is  most  favorable  to 
his  right,  he  stipulates,  that  for  himself,  and  in  the  name  of  his  heirs 
and  successors,  or  of  any  right  claimed  under  them,  he  sells  and  alien- 
ates forever,  to  the  same  Mr.  Alexander  Forbes,  of  this  vicinity  and 
commerce,  for  himself  and  his  representatives,  one  varra  of  the  two 
that  as  yet  belong  to  the  subscriber  hereto,  in  the  mine  heretofore  re- 
ferred to,  and  which  is  known  by  the  name  of  Santa  Clara.  That  he 
transfers  to  the  purchaser  the  direct  and  absolute  possession  of  the 
aforesaid  varra,  with  all  the  uses,  profits,  and  appurtenances,  with  all 
every  other  right,  to  the  same  belonging  and  appertaining  ;  inasmuch, 
all  of  which  he  cedes  and  transfers  to  the  aforesaid  Mr.  Forbes,  and 
the  subscriber  hereto  declares,  that  the  varra  which  he  alienates  is  free 
from  all  incumbrance,  implied  or  expressed,  as  he  thus  warrants  the 
same,  and  that  the  sale  is  made  in  the  sum  of  one  thousand  dollars, 
which  he  confesses  to  have  received,  to  his  entire  satisfaction,  and  as 
this  amount  does  not  appear  presently,  he  renounces,  Law  9,  title  1st, 


501 

Section  5th,  and  the  two  years  which  are  allowed  for  the  proof  of  the 
receipt  of  the  same,  which  he  grants  as  if  they  were  past.  Covenant- 
ing from  now,  the  most  firm  and  efficient  guaranty  that  may  conduce 
to  the  security  of  the  purchaser  ;  he  likewise  affirms  that  the  sum  of 
one  thousand  dollars,  in  which  he  sells  that  varra,  is  the  value  of  the 
same,  and  that  notwithstanding  it  should  be  worth  more,  of  the  over- 
plus whatever  be  the  sum,  small  or  great,  he  grants  and  donates  the 
same  to  the  purchaser,  and  his  representatives  according  to  law,  and 
he  renounces  law  2,  Title  1st,  Book  10,  of  the  Latest  Digest,  and  his 
benefit  of  the  four  years  in  which  to  ask  the  recision  of  this  contract, 
or  the  completion  of  the  just  value  of  the  thing  sold,  which  term  he 
grants,  as  if  the  same  were  past. 

In  consequence  whereof,  he  dispossesses  himself  of,  abandons  and 
quit  claims  whatever  right  that  he  may  have  had,  and  could  have  to 
the  aforesaid  varra,  so  that  as  belonging  to  the  purchaser,  and  acquired 
with  legitimate  title,  he  may  direct  the  shares  which  belongs  to  him, 
and  he  may  take  possession  thereof,  either  Judicially  or  extra-judicial- 
ly,  in  virtue  of  this  Instrument.  Likewise  the  subscriber  hereto  war- 
rants the  security  and  validity  of  this  sale,  so  that,  it  shall  never  serve 
as  an  impediment  to  the  same,  the  second  clause  of  the  Articles  of 
Partnership,  which  is  hereinbefore  inserted,  inasmuch  as  he  covenants, 
that  his  partners  shall  ratify  and  consent  to  this  sale,  as  the  subscriber 
hereto,  has  already  heretofore  done,  and  as  his  partners  have  likewise, 
and  to  this  effect  he  ratifies  the  security  and  guaranty  that  he  offers. 

Acceptation.  And  Mr.  Alexander  Forbes  being  present,  whom  I  certify 
I  know,  and  acquainted  with  the  contents  of  this  Instrument,  declared, 
that  for  himself  and  for  his  representatives,  he  accepts  the  sale,  that 
is  made  to  him  under  the  surety  which  is  offered  him,  and  he  remains 
bound  as  a  shareholder  of  the  mine,  in  the  varra  that  is  sold  to  him, 
to  comply  with  the  other  partners,  in  that  which  is  required  of  him,  by 
the  ordinance  pertaining  thereto. 

And  for  the  fulfilment  of  the  foregoing,  the  subscribers  hereto  pledge 
their  property,  in  possesskn  or  expectancy,  with  submission  to  and 
renunciation  of,  the  laws  and  privileges,  that  may  be  in  their  favour 
and  defence,  and  acknowledge  themselves  as  strictly  bound,  as  if  it 
were  by  sentence  passed,  in  authority  of  a  final  Judgment,  and  they 
signed,  being  witnesses  hereto  Don  Ignacio  Mariscal,  Don  Santos 
Gallegos,  and  Don  Ramon  Panse,  who  I  certify  were  present. 

JOSE  CASTRO, 
ALEXANDER  FORBES, 
JESUS  VI  JAR. 


4th  i  ocu      (  In  the  City  of  Tepic,  on  the  tenth  of  March,  one  thousand 
c"1'  eight  hundred  and  forty-seven,  before  me,  the  Notary,  and 

witnesses,  the  Sefior  Don  Jose'  Castro,  a  resident  in  this  place,  and  in  his 


incut. 


502 

proper  person,  which  I  certify  I  know,  declared,  that  he  was  the  legal 
owner  of  four  varras  or  shares  in  a  silver  mine,  with  alloy  of  gold  and 
quicksilver,  situated  in  appurtenances  of  the  Rancho  of  Don  Jose* 
Reyes  Berreyesa,  in  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Pueblo  of  San  Jose*  of 
Guadalupe,  of  the  Territory  of  Upper  California,  in  the  Second  Dis- 
trict of  Monterey,  as  appears  in  the  archives  of  that  place,  and  from 
whence  was  extracted  an  extrajudicial  copy  of  the  contract  of  that 
Company,  which  document  exhibits  itself,  properly  certified  herewith, 
the  same  being  seen  in  other  contracts,  and  which  certifying  thereto, 
says  to  the  letter,  as  follows : 

indenture  of  Articles  of  Capartnership  which  the  Senor  Don  Andres 
partnership.  Castillero,  Captain  of  permanent  cavalry,  enters  into  with 
the  Commanding  General,  Don  Jose  Castro,  the  Messrs.  Secundino 
Robles,  Theodore  Robles,  and  a  voluntary  cession,  whieh  the  partners 
have  made,  forever,  to  the  Rev.  Father,  Friar  Jose'  Maria  del  Refugio 
Suares  del  Real,  in  a  silver  mine,  with  alloy  of  gold  and  quicksilver, 
in  the  Rancho  of  Don  Jos£  Reyes  Berreyesa,  in  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
Pueblo  de  San  Jose,  of  Guadalupe. 

Article  First. — The  Senor  Don  Andres  Castillero,  conforming  strict- 
ly to  the  mining  ordinance,  creates  a  genuine  company  forever,  with 
the  aforesaid  gentlemen,  in  this  form  :  The  half  of  the  mine,  which  is 
what  he  can  dispose  of,  shall  be  divided  into  three  shares  in  this  form  : 
Four  varras  to  the  Senor  Commanding  General,  Four  varras  to  the 
Messrs.  Secundino  and  Theodore  Robles,  and  the  other  four,  to  the 
Rev.  Father,  Friar  Jose  Mnria  del  Refugio  Suares  del  Real,  as  a  per- 
petual gift. 

Article  Second. — None  of  the  partners  shall  be  able  to  sell,  or  alien- 
ate any  of  their  shares,  so  that  he  who  should  verify  said  alienation, 
shall  lose  his  right,  the  same  accruing  to  the  remaining  partners. 

Article  Third. — The  expenses  shall  be  borne  in  proportion  to  the 
shares,  keeping  a  just  account  of  the  same. 

Article  Fourth. — In  strict  conformity  with  the  provisions  of  the 
mining  ordinance,  whatever  difficulty  may  arise,  shall  be  settled  by 
the  partners. 

Article  Fifth. — Don  Andres  Castillero  shall  direct  the  operations, 
expenses,  and  works  of  the  mine,  and  in  default  of  him  the  Rev.  Father 
Friar  Jose*  Maria  del  Refugio  Suares  del  Real. 

Article  Sixth. — There  shall  not  be  extracted  of  the  products  a  greater 
quantity  than  what  is  needed  for  the  arrangement  of  the  business,  until 
the  operations  are  arranged,  and  whatever  quantity  that  is  extracted, 
has  to  be  with  consent  of  all  the  partners,  until  the  final  arrangement 
of  the  business. 

Article  Seventh. — This  contract  shall  be  ratified  in  the  presence  of 
the  Prefect  of  the  Second  District,  Don  Manuel  Castro,  depositing  the 


503 

original  document  in  the  archive  of  that  place,  and  giving  a  certified 
copy  of  the  same,  for  its  security  to  the  parties  interested. 

Mission  of  Santa  Clara,  second  of  November,  one  thousand  eight 
hundred  and  forty-five. 

ANDRES  CASTILLERO. 
For  the  Commanding  General,  Don  Jose*  Castro. 

ANDRES  CASTILLERO. 
FRIAR  JOSE  MARIA  del  REFUGIO  SUARES  del  REAL. 
For  Secundino  and  Theodore  Robles. 

FRANCISCO  ARSE. 

This  is  a  true  copy  of  the  original,  and  to  which  I  advert. 
Mission  of  Santa  Clara,  December  eighth,  one  thousand  eight  hun- 
dred and  forty-five. 

MANUEL  CASTRO. 
ANTONIO  MARIA  PICO. 

This  is  a  copy. 

Mexico,  December  fifth;  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  forty-six. 

ANDRES  CASTILLERO. 

The  sale  That  by  the  foregoing,  and  as  a  shareholder  in  that  mine  of 
follows.  tne  four  varras,  which  belonged  to  him,  the  same  Don  Jose*  Cas- 
tro goes  on  to  say,  that  of  the  said  four  varras,  he  has  heretofore  sold 
three,  to  Mr.  Alexander  Forbes  of  this  vicinity,  as  is  evidenced  by  the 
Deeds  of  sale,  which  he  has  executed,  before  this  authority,  the  first  of 
March,  twelfth,  and  sixteenth  of  April,  of  this  year,  which  deeds,  he 
ratifies  anew,  as  legal  sales  wThich  he  has  made,  and  seeing  by  them, 
that  to  the  affiant  hereto,  there  only  remains  one  varra,  in  that  mine 
now,  and  it  convening  to  his  interests,  he  bargains  to  alienate  the  same, 
remaining  altogether  divested  of  the  share  which  belonged  to  him  in 
the  aforesaid  mine  ;  Therefore  in  that  manner  and  form,  that  may  be 
most  secure,  the  aforesaid  Senor  Castro  stipulates :  for  himself,  and  in 
the  name  -of  his  heirs  and  successors,  or  of  any  right  claimed  under 
them,  whatever,  and  he  sells  and  alienates  forever,  to  the  same  Don 
Alexander  Forbes,  of  this  vicinity  and  commerce,  for  him  and  his  rep- 
resentatives, that  varra,  which  has  as  yet  belonged  to  the  subscriber 
hereto  in  the  aforementioned  mine,  which  is  known  by  the  name  of 
Santa  Clara,  and  which  as  the  sole  property,  which  in  it,  there  remained 
to  him,  that  he  transfers  to  the  purchaser  the  direct  and  absolute  pos- 
session of  the  aforesaid  varra,  with  all  the  uses,  profits  and  appurte- 
nances, with  all  and  every  other  right,  to  the  same  belonging  and  ap- 
pertaining, inasmuch  all  of  which  he  cedes  and  transfers  to  the  above 
mentioned  Mr.  Forbes.  And  the  subscriber  declares,  that  this  last 
varra  which  he  alienates,  is  free  from  all  incumbrance,  implied  or  ex- 


504 

pressed,  as  he  thus  warrants  the  same,  and  that  the  sale  is  made  for 
the  sum  of  one  thousand  dollars,  which  he  acknowledges  to  have  re- 
ceived to  his  satisfaction,  and  as  this  amount  does  not  appear  presently, 
he  renounces  Law  9,  Title  1st,  part  5th,  and  the  two  years  which  are 
allowed  for  the  proof  of  the  receipt  of  the  same,  which  he  grants,  as  if 
they  were  passed,  and  he  executes  to  the  purchaser,  the  most  efficient 
guaranty,  that  may  conduce  to  his  security. 

He  likewise  affirms  that  the  sum  of  one  thousand  dollars,  in  which 
he  sells  that  varra,  is  the  value  of  the  same,  and  that  notwithstanding 
it  should  be  worth  more,  of  the  overplus  whatever  be  the  sum,  small  or 
great,  he  grants  and  denates  the  same  to  the  purchaser,  and  his  repre- 
sentatives according  to  law,  and  he  renounces  Law  2,  Title  1st,  Book 
10,  of  the  latest  Digest,  and  his  benefit  of  the  four  years  in  which  to 
ask  the  recision  of  the  contract,  or  the  completion  of  the  just  value 
thereof,  which  term  he  grants  as  if  the  same  was  past. 

In  consequence  whereof,  he  dispossesses  himself,  abandons,  quit- 
claims and  parts  with  whatever  right  which  he  may  have  had,  and 
could  have,  to  the  aforementioned  varra,  and  total  share  in  the  mine  ; 
so  that  as  belonging  to  the  purchaser,  and  acquired  with  legitimate 
title,  he  may  direct  that  share  which  belongs  to  him,  and  he  may  take 
possession  thereof  either  Judicially  or  Extrajudicially,  by  virtue  Of  this 
instrument.  Likewise  the  subscriber  hereto,  warrants  the  security 
and  guaranty  of  this  sale,  also  that  it  shall  never  serve  as  an  impedi- 
ment to  the  same,  the  second  clause  of  the  Articles  of  Copartnership, 
which  are  heretofore  herein  inserted,  and  he  covenants  that  his  partners 
ratify  and  consent  to  this  sale,  as  the  subscriber  hereto,  has  ratified  and 
consented,  and  as  they  also  have  heretofore  done,  and  to  this  effect, 
he  ratifies  the  security  and  guaranty  that  he  offers. 

Acceptation.  And  Mr.  Alexander  Forbes  being  present,  whom  I  certify 
I  know,  and  acquainted  with  the  contents  of  this  document,  declared, 
that  for  himself  and  for  his  representatives,  he  accepts  the  sale,  which 
is  made  to  him,  under  the  guaranty,  hereby  offered,  and  he  remains 
bound  as  a  shareholder  of  the  mine  by  the  varra  that  is  sold  to  him,  to 
comply,  with  the  other  partners,  in  that  which  is  required  of  him  by 
the  ordinance  pertaining  thereto.  And  for  the  fulfilment  of  the  fore- 
going, the  subscribers  hereto  pledge  their  property  in  possession  or  ex- 
pectancy, with  submission  and  renunciation  of  the  laws  and  privileges 
that  there  may  be  in  their  favor  and  defence,  and  acknowledge  them- 
selves bound  according  to  law,  as  if  it  were  by  sentence  passed  in  au- 
thority of  final  judgment,  so  they  executed  and  signed  the  same,  being 
witnesses  thereto,  Don  Ramon  Panse,  Don  Francisco  de  los  llios  and 
Don  Santos  Gallegos,  who  I  certify  were  present. 

JOSE  CASTRO, 
ALEXANDER  FORBES. 
JESUS  VEGAR,  Notary  Public. 

"  The  end  hereof." 


505 

This  agrees  with  the  originals,  which  are  contained  in,  from  the 
forty-sixth  to  the  forty-ninth  page,  the  first  Document.  The  second, 
from  the  hundred  and  fifty-first  to  the  hundred  and  fifty-fifth  page  ; 
and  the  fourth,  from  the  hundred  and  sixty-seventh  ("  167th  ")  to  the 
hundred  and  seventy-first  page,  all  of  the  Book  of  Judicial  Records  for 
the  last  year,  from  whence  the  same  was  taken  and  corrected  in  these 
seventeen  pages  of  sealed  paper  of  the  1st  and  4th  class,  the  second 
time  at  request  of  the  purchaser,  Don  Alexander  Forbes. 

In  Testimony  whereof,  I  sign  and  seal  the  same,  in  Tepic,  on  the 
seventeeth  of  August,  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  forty-eight. 

JESUS  VEGAR. 

Of  the  four  varras  mentioned  in  this  instrument,  two  have  been  sold 
by  the  proprietor,  to  the  Messrs.  Barron,  Forbes  and  Company,  accord- 
ing to  what  passed  before  me,  at  this  date,  Tepic,  April  eleventh,  one 
thousand  eight  hundred  and  forty-nine. 

JESUS  VEGAR. 

We,  the  undersigned,  1st  Constitutional  Alcalde,  and  Notary  Pub- 
lic, hereby  certify  that  the  foregoing  signature  is  that  which  the  Notary, 
Don  Jesus  Yegar,  is  accustomed  to  use,  in  all  the  acts,  which  pass  be- 
fore him.  And  as  such  we  certify  in  Tepic,  on  the  fifteenth  day  of 
March,  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  fifty. 

LORETO  CORONA, 
EUSEBIO  FERNANDEZ. 


0.  H.  No.  30. 
Vide  "  H.  L.  No.  4."    Page  173. 

0.  H.  No.  31. 

Vide  "  H.  L.  No.  5."      Page  175. 


0.  H.  No.  32. 

TRANSLATION  OF  "  H.  L.  No.  5." 

In  the  Mission  of  Santa  Clara,  on  the  ninth  day  of  the  month  of  Au- 
gust, one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  forty-nine,  before  me,  George 
Bellamy,  auxiliar  Alcalde  of  the  Jurisdiction  of  the  Pueblo  of  San 
Jose*  of  Guadalupe,  and  witnesses  of  assistance,  there  appeared  the 
Reverend  Father,  Friar  Jose*  Maria  del  Refugio  Suares  del  Real, 
40 


506 

whom  I  certify  I  know,  and  he  declared :  that  by  virtue  of  an  agree- 
ment of  partnership,  entered  into  between  Andres  Castillero,  Don  Jose* 
Castro,  Don  Theodore  and  Don  Secundino  Robles,  the  second  of  No- 
vember, one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  forty  five,  there  belongs  and 
pertains  to  him  in  law,  as  a  perpetual  donation,  four  varras  in  a  silver 
mine,  with  alloy  of  gold  and  quicksilver,  situated,  according  as  shewn 
in  the  Judicial  papers  of  the  Record,  in  appurtenances  of  the  Rancho 
of  Don  Jose'  Reyes  Berreyesa,  in  the  same  Juridiction ;  three  of  which 
four  varras,  the  subscriber  hereto,  sold  and  alienated  to  Mr.  Alexander 
Forbes  by  Indenture  of  sale,  in  the  month  of  January,  one  thousand 
eight  hundred  and  forty-eight.  That  now  in  his  quality  of  shareholder 
in  the  said  mine,  in  the  manner  aforesaid,  and  in  the  manner  and  form 
that  may  be  most  in  conformity  to  law,  he  stipulates,  that  for  himself, 
his  heirs  and  successors,  or  by  virtue  of  whatever  right,  condition  or 
title  that  may  be  therein,  he  sells  and  alienates  forever,  to  Mr.  Robert 
Walkinshaw,  a  resident  of  this  Jurisdiction,  for  himself  and  his  repre- 
sentatives, the  said  one  varra,  that  still  pertains  to  him  as  a  perpetual 
donation  in  the  aforesaid  mine,  which  in  his  title  of  record,  is  known 
by  the  name  of  that  of  Santa  Clara,  and  at  present  by  that  of  New  Al- 
maden.  That  he  transfers  to  the  said  Mr.  Robert  Walkinshaw,  the 
lawful  right  and  title  to  the  said  varra,  with  all  the  uses,  profits  and 
appurtenances  thereof,  with  the  fruits  and  products  which  thereto  be- 
long and  appertain,  from  and  after  the  seventeenth  of  December,  one 
thousand  eight  hundred  and  forty-six,  with  power  to  reclaim  the  same 
from  the  possession  of  any  person  living,  with  all  and  every  other  right 
which  to  the  same  may  belong  and  appertain,  inasmuch  as  he  cedes 
and  transfers  the  whole  thereof  to  the  aforesaid  Mr.  Walkinshaw. 

And  the  subscriber  declares,  that  the  varra  which  he  alienates,  is 
free  from  all  incumbrance,  general  and  particular,  implied  and  ex- 
pressed, as  he  thus  warrants  the  same,  and  the  sale  thereof,  and  the 
fruits  and  products  as  above  mentioned,  is  made  for  the  sum  of  five 
thousand  dollars  in  current  money,  which  he  confesses  to  have  received, 
to  his  entire  satisfaction.  That  he  expressly  renounces  the  benefit  of 
the  law  9,  tile  1st,  part  5th,  and  likewise  the  2nd  law,  title  1st,  Book 
10  of  the  Latest  Digest,  as  also  of  whatever  other  law  that  favors  his 
right,  to  ask  proof  of  the  receipt  of  the  value,  or  in  reversion  of  this 
contract,  under  the  protest  herein. 

In  consequence  whereof,  he  dispossesses  himself  of,  abandons  and 
•quit-claims  whatever  right  which  he  may  have  had,  and  could  have  to 
the  .aforesaid  varra,  so  that  as  belonging*  to  the  purchaser,  and  ac- 
quired with  legitimate  title,  he  may  direct  the  share,  which  belongs  to 
him,  and  he  may  take  possession  thereof,  Judicially  or  Extrajudicially, 
by  virtue  of  this  instrument. 

Likewise  the  subscriber  hereto  warrants  the  security  and  validity 
of  this  sale,  as  also  that  the  second  article  of  the  said  agreement  o 


507 

partnership  shall  never  serve  as  an  obstacle  to  the  same,  and  Mr.  Rob- 
ert Walkinshaw  being  present,  whom  I  certify  I  know,  and  acquainted 
with  the  contents  of  this  instrument,  declared,  that  for  himself  and  his 
representatives,  he  accepts  the  sale  that  is  made  to  him,  under  guar- 
anty, that  is  offered,  and  he  remains  bound,  as  a  shareholder  of  the 
said  mine,  in  the  varra  that  is  sold  to  him,  to- comply  with  the  rest  of  the 
partners,  in  conformity  with  the  laws  ;  and  for  the  fulfilment  of  the 
foregoing,  the  subscribers  hereto  pledge  their  property,  either  in  pos- 
session or  expectancy,  with  submission  to,  and  renunciation  of  the  laws 
and  privileges  that  there  may  be  in  their  favor  and  defence,  and  ac- 
knowledge themselves  bound,  as  if  it  were  by  sentence  passed  by  vir- 
tue of  a  final  judgment,  and  they  signed  hereto,  being  witnesses,  Don 
Jesus  Herrera,  and  Don  Francisco  Arse. 

FR.  J.  M.  del  R.  S.  del  REAL. 

ROBERT  WALKINSHAW. 
GEO.  W.  BELLAMY, 

Alcalde. 
Of  Assistance  :  Of  Assistance  : 

Jesus  HerreRa.  Fran00  Arse. 


Vide 

0. 
"  H.  L. 

H.  No. 

,  No.  2. 

33. 
»     Page 

149. 

0.  H.  No. 
TRANSLATION  OF 

34.  ' 
"ILL. 

No.  2." 

In  the  Town  of  San  Jose  of  Guadalupe,  on  the  twenty-seventh  day 
of  the  month  of  December,  of  the  year  one  thousand  eight  hundred 
and  forty-seven,  acting  by  acceptance,  for  want  of  a  Notary  Public, 
before- me,  James  W.  Weekes,  Constitutional  Judge,  and  witnesses  of 
assistance,  there  appeared  the  Very  Reverend  Father,  Friar  Jose  Ma- 
ria del  Refugio  Suares  del  Real,  attorney  in  fact  of  Don  Andres  Cas- 
tillero,  Captain  of  Permanent  Cavalry,  resident  in  the  City  of  Mexico, 
which  person,  (the  said  Reverend  Father,)  I  certify  I  know,  and  he 
declared  :  that  having  legitimate  power,  which  he  exhibited,  from  said 
Castillero,  to  enable  him  to  sell  three  varras  of  the  silver  mine,  with 
alloy  of  gold  and  quicksilver,  situated  in  the  Rancho  of  Don  Jose 
Reyes  Berreyesa,  in  the  Jurisdiction  of  the  Pueblo  of  San  Jose 
Guadalupe,  in  the  Territory  of  Upper  California,  in  the  Second 
District  of  Monterey ;  that  by  such  power,  by  these  presents, 
and  in  the  most  solemn  form  that  there  may  be  in  law,  he  stipulates, 


508 

for  him,  and  in  the  name  of  his  heirs  and  successors,  and  thos3  whose 
rights  he  hereby  represents,  that  he  sells  in  actual  sale,  and  perpetual 
alienation,  to  Mr.  Alexander  Forbes,  Consul  of  Her  Britannic  Majesty, 
and  now  a  resident  at  the  works  of  the  aforesaid  mine,  and  in  the  Ju- 
risdiction of  this  said  Pueblo  of  San  Jose'  Guadalupe,  to  him,  his  heirs, 
and  those  whose  rights  are  represented,  "  To  wit "  :  Three  varras,  of 
the  ten,  of  which  he  is  the  lawful  owner,  in  the  aforesaid  mine  of  Santa 
Clara,  which  this  grantor  possessed  as  discoverer  thereof,  and  with 
such  facility,  he  transfers  to  the  purchaser,  the  aforesaid  three  varras, 
with  all  the  uses,  profits  and  appurtenances,  with  all  and  every  other 
right,  to  the  same  belonging  and  appertaining  ;  inasmuch  all  of  which, 
he  cedes,  renounces  and  transfers  to  the  aforementioned  Mr.  Forbes, 
and  those  whose  rights  he  represents.  He  declares  that  the  aforesaid 
three  varras  are  free  from  all  incumbrance,  either  as  a  tax  or  mortgage, 
especial  or  general,  and  as  such,  he  warrants  the  same,  for  the  price 
and  sum  of  four  thousand  five  hundred  dollars,  which  he  confesses  to 
have  received,  in  silver  money,  as  is  usual  and  current,  of  the  Mexican 
currency,  to  his  entire  satisfaction,  by  reason  whereof,  he  renounces 
the  exception  of  the  pecuniary  non-remuneration  law  nine,  title  first, 
part  fifth,  with  the  four  years  which  are  conceded  for  the  proofs 
thereof,  which  he  grants  as  passed ;  stipulating  by  these  presents,  the 
most  firm  and  efficient  guarantee,  that  may  conduce  to  the  security  of 
the  purchaser. 

He  likewise  declares,  that  the  just  and  legitimate  price  of  the  afore- 
said  three  varras,  is  four  thousand  five  hundred  dollars,  which  he  con- 
fesses to  have  received,  inasmuch  as  they  are  not  worth  more,  nor  has 
there  been  any  person  wtfo  offers  as  much ;  but  if  the  value  of  the 
same  was  more,  or  in  time^fco  come  the  increase  should  be  excessive, 
he  grants  and  donates  the  whole,  free,  unencumbered  and  complete 
and  irrevocable,  with  allusion  and  revocation  of  law  two,  title  first, 
book  10  of  the  Latest  Digest,  which  treats  of  the  contracts,  in  which 
there  is  a  damage,  in  more  or  less  of  the  half  of  the  just  price,  fixing 
four  years  in  which  to  ask  the  reason  thereof,  or  completion  of  the  just 
value,  which  he  grants  as  passed,  and  renounces  with  the  aforesaid 
law.  From  now,  forever,  he  dispossesses  himself,  quit-claims,  and 
parts  with,  all  interest,  ownership,  possession,  and  quasi  possession, 
that  he  might  have  to  the  aforesaid  three  varras,  and  all  of  which  he 
cedes,  renounces  and  conveys,  to  the  purchaser  or  his  representatives, 
so  that  as  owner,  he  may  dispose  of  them,  of  his  own  free  will,  as  his 
own  property,  acquired  with  just  and  legitimate  title,  and  transfer  of 
dominion,  which  is  the  present  Document,  taking,  himself,  or  judicially, 
the  possession  or  occupancy  thereof,  and  constituting  himself  in  the 
meantime  as  the  tenant  and  uncertain  possession,  in  legal  form. 

He  also  guarantees,  the  eviction,  security  and  validity  of  this  sale, 
so  that  the  second  article  of  the  agreement  of  Partnership  shall  never 


509 

serve  as  an  impediment  to  the  same,  and  which  were  suscbribed  to,  in 
the  Mission  of  Santa  Clara,  on  the  second  of  November,  one  thousand 
eight  hundred  and  forty-five,  inasmuch  he  covenants  that  his  partners 
shall  ratify  and  consent  to  the  same,  as  the  subscriber  hereto  has  done, 
and  as  they  also  have  done  in  other  instances  ;  with  the  understanding, 
that  if  this  be  not  possible,  or  the  purchaser  be  involved  in  any  suit, 
which  be  to  his  cost,  and  he  be  not  left  in  the  quiet  and  pacific  pos- 
session thereof,  the  four  thousand  five  hundred  dollars  shall  be  return- 
ed to  him,  which  he  confesses  to  have  received  as  the  fruits  of  the 
three  varras,  of  which  he  is  owner,  and  paying  him  all  the  damages, 
costs,  and  deteriorations,  which  may  happen  to  him,  without  farther 
proof  thereof  than  the  simple  oath  of  the  party ;  and  for  the  fulfilment 
of  this  obligation,  he  mortgages,  express,  especial  and  pointedly,  the 
aforesaid  three  varras,  which  he  shall  not  be  able  to  sell,  encumber, 
nor  in  any  other  manner  alienate,  without  express  consent  of  the  pur- 
chaser, who  on  the  contrary,  shall  be  able  to  claim  them  even  from 
third  possessors,  in  order  to  cover  himself,  with  whatever  may  be  owed 
to  him,  in  conformity  with  this  indenture  The  costs  of  this  Inden- 
ture shall  be  borne  by  both  the  contractors  herein,  by  halves,  and  Don 
Alexander  Forbes,  Consul  of  Her  Britannic  Majesty,  being  present, 
which  person,  an  adult  in  age,  I  certify  I  know,  and  acquainted  with 
the  contents  of  this  instrument,  declared,  that  fcr  himself,  and  in  legal 
form,  he  accepts  the  present,  agreeing  for  this  purpose  verbally  and  in 
writing,  firmly  and  willingly,  and  for  himself,  that  he  is  satisfied  with 
the  present  instrument,  obligating  himself  to  comply  with  what,  in  it, 
he  has  promised,  and  pertains  to  him. 

And  for  the  fulfilment  of  all  the  foregoing,  the  vendor  pledges  his 
person  and  effects,  in  possession  or  expectancy,  and  with  them  submits 
to  the  statute,  and  Jurisdiction  of  the  Judges,  who  may  or  ought  to 
try  such  causes  according  to  law,  so  that  for  the  same,  they  may  con- 
strain and  bind  them,  as  by  a  definitive  sentence,  given  and  passed  by 
virtue  of  a  final  judgment ;  he  renounces  his  immunities  of  residence 
and  citizenship,  with  the  general  law,  and  that  which  prohibits  its  gen- 
eral renunciation,  and  before  me,  he  stipulates,  by  his  attorney  in  fact, 
with  Mr.  Alexander  Forbes,  being  witnesses  thereto,  Don  Antonio 
Sunol,  Don  Jose*  Noriega,  and  Don  Dolores  Pacheco,  residents,  who  I 
certify  were  present.  And  at  the  signing  hereof,  the  parties  hereto 
added,  that  this  sale,  and  all  contained  in  this  present  document,  shall 
not  take  effect,  until  Mr.  Alexander  Forbes  is  in  the  quiet  and  peace- 
able possion  of  the  three  varras  sold,  and  if  by  any  persons,  or  by 
whatever  reason,  he  should  be  disturbed,  then  the  mortgage  shall  have 
all  its  force,  as  intended,  by  the  same,  to  the  varras  heretofore  men- 
tioned in  the  clause  of  security,  in  the  present  document,  reproducing 


510 

before  the  same  witnesses  the  warranty  for  the  fulfilment  of  this  last 
condition,  and  they  hereto  signed,  to  which  I  certify. 
(As  Attorney  in  fact,) 
FRIAR  JOSE  MARIA  del  REFUGIO  SUARES  del  REAL. 
(Signed.)  ALEX.  FORBES. 

Of  Assistance  :  Of  Assistance  : 

Jose  Noriega.  Antonio  Sunol. 

Of  Assistance : 

Dolores  Pacheco. 

JAMES  W.  WEEKES, 

Alcalde. 

I  certify  that  the  foregoing  document  is  a  true  copy,  taken  to  the 
letter,  from  the  original  Indenture,  to  which  I  certify  (dated  as  above.) 

JAMES  W.  WEEKES, 

Alcalde. 


0.  H.  No.  35. 
Duplicate. 


Know  all  men  by  these  presents,  that  I  Alexander  Forbes  a  British 
subject  at  present  residing  in  the  City  of  Tepic  in  the  Republic  of 
Mexico,  in  my  own  name  and  in  the  name  of  the  Company  established 
for  the  working  of  the  Mine  of  New  Almaden  or  Santa  Clara  in 
Upper  California,  have  made  constituted  and  appointed  and  by  these 
presents  do  make  constitue  and  appoint  James  Alex.  Forbes  of  Santa 
Clara  in  California,  my  true  and  lawful  Attorney  for  me  and  in  my 
name  and  in  the  name  and  stead  of  the  Company  aforesaid,  to  demand 
and  receive  possession  of  the  said  Mine  of  New  Almaden  from  who- 
ever may  be  in  the  management  or  possession  thereof,  with  all  the 
ores,  utensils,  houses,  and  all  and  everything  thereto  appertaining 
hereby  authorizing  my  said  Attorney  to  direct  and  work  the  same  for 
my  account  and  for  account  of  the  foresaid  Company  in  such  manner 
as  shall  appear  to  my  said  Attorney  to  be  for  the  interest  of  all  con- 
cerned, and  in  conformity  with  the  instructions  to  that  effect  given, 
and  I  hereby  in  my  own  name  and  in  name  of  the  Company  aforesaid 
delegate  to  him  my  said  Attorney  my  full  and  entire  power  and 
authority  in  the  premises,  to  demand  accounts,  recover  debts,  receive 
all  funds  belonging  to  me  or  to  the  aforesaid  Company,  or  to  the  said 
Mine,  to  demand  the  same  at  law  or  equity,  to  name  and  appoint 
managers  and  laborers,  to  remove  the  same,  and  to  perform  all  such 
lawful  acts  deeds  matters  and  things  therein  as  may  be  requisite  and 


511 

necessary  in  as  large  full  and  ample  a  manner  as  I  myself  might  or 
could  do  were  I  personally  present,  and  acting  therein  in  my  own 
proper  person,  or  as  if  my  said  Attorney  was  thereto  more  fully  and 
especially  authorized,  with  full  and  ample  powers  of  substitution  and 
revocation  at  his  own  will  and  pleasure,  hereby  engaging  to  ratify 
and  confirm  all  and  whatsoever  my  said  Attorney  or  his  substitute  or 
substitutes,  shall  or  may  lawfully  do,  or  cause  to  be  ddne  in  the  prem- 
ises under  or  by  virtue  of  these  presents. 

In  testimony  whereof  I  have  set  my  hand  and  seal  to  these  pres- 
ents, this  twenty-third  day  of  April  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thou- 
sand eight  hundred  and  forty-nine. 

ALEX.  FORBES. 

Joaquin  Andrade,  Witness. 

Wm.  E.  Barron,  Witness. 


Los  infrascritos  Escribanos  publicos,  certificamos :  que  las  anteriores 
firmas  son  propias  de  los  Senores,  D.  Alejandro  Forbes,  D.  Joaquin 
Andrade  y  D.  Guillermo  E.  Barron,  las  mismas  que  usan  entodos  sus 
negocios.  En  cuya  combrobacion,  sentamos  la  presente  en  Tepic  a 
diez  y  nueve  de  Mayo  de  mil  ochocientos  cuarenta  y  nueve. 

t 
t  PANFILO  SOLIS. 

JESUS  VEJAR. 


I  hereby  certify  that  the  foregoing  signatures  are  in  the  true  hand- 
writing of  the  subscribers,  who  hold  the  situations  represented,  and 
who  are  worthy  of  all  faith  and  credit. 

(  )      Given  under  my  hand  and  seal  of  office  in  the  city  of 

(  !f^,  S  TePic  this  19th  <%  of  MaJ  1849« 

EUSTACE  W.  BARRON, 

Consul. 

1  Endorsed : 

Filed  for  Record  on  26th  Sept.  1849. 

Recorded  same  date  on  page  284  and  285  and  book  5  Archives  of 
San  Jose. 


512 

0.  H.  No.  36. 
Vide  "  H.  L.  No.  7."  Page  179 

0.  H.  No.  37. 
Vide  «  H.  L.  No.  8."  Page  180 

0.  H.  No.  38. 
Vide"H.  L.  No.  9."  Page  182 

0.  H.  No.  39. 
Vide  "  H.  L.  No.  10."  Page  183 

0.  H.  No.  40. 
Vide  "  H.  L.  No.  11."  Page  185 

0.  H.  No.  41. 
Vide  "  H.  L.  No.  12."  Page  187 

0.  H.  No.  42. 
Vide"H.  L.  No.  13."  Page  189 


0.  H.  No.  43. 

DEED JAS.  ALEX.  FORBES  TO  WM.  E.  BARRON. 

Know  all  men  by  these  presents,  that  I,  James  Alex.  Forbes,  of  the 
town  and  county  of  Santa  Clara,  State  of  California,  in  consideration 
of  the  sum  of  thirty  thousand  dollars  to  me  in  hand  paid  by  William 
E.  Barron,  of  the  city  and  county  of  San  Francisco,  and  State  afore- 
said, the  receipt  whereof  I  hereby  acknowledge,  have  bargained,  sold 
and  quit-claimed,  and  by  these  presents  do  bargain,  sell  and  quit-claim 
unto  the  said  William  E.  Barron  and  to  his  heirs  and  assigns  forever, 
all  my  right,  title,  interest,  estate,  claim  and  demand,  both  at  law  and 
in  equity,  and  as  well  in  possession  as  in  expectancy,  of,  in  and  to  One 
Barra  or  one  twenty-fourth  share  of  the  quicksilver  mine  of  New  Al- 
maden,  situate,  lying  and  being  in  the  said  County  and  State,  includ- 
ing all  my  right,  title,  interest,  estate,  claim  and  demand,  both  in  law 
and  in  equity,  as  well  in  possession  as  in  expectancy,  to  the  tract  of 
land  granted  by  the  President  of  Mexico,  to  Andres  Castillero  on  the 
20th  day  of  May,  A.  D.  1846,  described  in  the  order  or  decree  issued 
by  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  on  the  23d  May,  1846,  and 


513 

directed  to  the  Governor  of  California,  being  two  leagues  of  land 
situate  in  the  County  and  State  aforesaid ;  the  same  one  twenty-fourth 
share,  being  that  which  was  heretofore  conveyed  by  me,  to  the  said 
William  E.  Barron,  on  the  thirtieth  day  of  March,  1855,  with  all  and 
singular  the  hereditaments  and  appurtenances  thereunto  belonging. 

In  witness  whereof,  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  seal  the 
29th  day  of  May,  A.  D.  eighteen  hundred  and  fifty-five. 

JAMES  ALEX.  FORBES. 

Sealed  and  delivered  in  presence  of  E.  S.  Benson. 
State  of  California, 


qq 

County  of  San  Francisco.  * 

On  this  twenty-ninth  day  of  May,  A.  D.,  one  thousand  eight  hun- 
dred and  fifty-five,  before  me  Edward  S.  Benson,  a  Notary  Public  in 
and  for  said  County,  personally  appeared  James  Alex.  Forbes,  to  me 
known  to  be  the  individual  described  in  and  who  executed  the  annexed 
instrument,  and  acknowledged  that  he  executed  the  same  freely  and 
voluntarily,  for  the  uses  and  purposes  therein  mentioned. 

r ,      In  witness  whereof,  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and 

]  seal  J  affixed  my   official   seal,    the   day   and  year  first   above 
'  — —  '  written. 

E.  S.  BENSON, 
Notary  Public. 

Endorsed : 

Filed  for  record  (at  request  of  S.  Hamilton)  at  9$  o'clock,  A.  M., 
June  8th,  A.  D.,  1855. 

S.  E.   CLARK,  Recorder. 
By  F.  Lewis,  Deputy. 

Recorded  in  Book  G  of  deeds  on  pages  523  and  524,  (records  of 
the  County  of  Santa  Clara.) 

S.  A.  CLARK,  Recorder. 
By  F.  Lewis,  Deputy. 


0.  H.  No.  44. 
Vide  "  H.  L.  No.  15."  Page  192 


514 
0.  H.  No.  45. 

DEED — YECKER,  TORRE  &  CO.,  TO  BARRON,  FORBES  &  CO.,  AND  BOLTON, 

BARRON  &  CO. 

TRANSLATION  OF  "  H.  L.  No.  15." 

In  the  City  of  Mexico,  on  the  seventh  of  December  one  thousand 
eight  hundred  and  fifty-two,  before  me  the  National  and  Public  No- 
tary, of  the  number  that  are,  and  the  witnesses  which  are  named, 
there  appeared  the  Messrs.  Yecker,  Torre  &  Co.,  of  this  commerce, 
of  the  first  part,  and  of  the  second,  Mr.  Eustace  Barron,  in  represen- 
tation of  his  house  of  Barron,  Forbes  and  Company  of  Tepic,  where- 
by he  guarantees  firmly  and  willingly,  (por  la  que  presta  caucion  de 
grato  et  rato)  and  futhermore  he  offers,  that  this  contract  shall  there 
be  ratified,  or  else  he  will  present  within  a  month,  power  sufficient,  in 
this  capital,  to  effect  the  said  ratification :  those  present,  being  resi- 
dents of  this  capital,  whom  I  certify  I  know,  and  they  declared,  that 
the  Messrs.  Yecker,  Torre  &  Co.,  had  in  the  mine  and  negotiation  of 
quicksilver,  called  New  Almaden,  situated  in  the  Mission  of  Santa 
Clara,  in  Upper  California,  three  and  a  half  supplying  shares,  of  the 
twelve  of  this  class,  into  which  the  property  is  divided,  and  four,  and 
eleven  fourteenths,  which  form  the  total  of  the  shares  supplied,  the 
'ownership  to  which  appears  by  the  respective  contracts  and  deeds, 
and  by  the  receipts  for  the  payments  which  they  have  made,  as  also 
by  the  accounts  of  the  articles  supplied,  and  in  consequence  of  their 
ownership,  and  title  therein,  they  made,  on  the  twenty  seventh  of 
November  last  passed,  to  Barron,  Forbes  &  Co.,  the  sale  of  the  afore- 
said shares,  by  the  agreement  which  they  hereby  exhibit  to  me,  and 
which  is  to  the  letter  as  follows: 

Contract.  Messrs.  Yecker,  Torre  &  Co.  sell  to  Messrs.  Barron,  Forbes  & 
Co.,  their  four  and  eleven  fourteenth  parts  (4JJ)  of  shares  supplied,  and 
the  three  and  a  half  (3J)  supplying  shares  in  the  mine  of  New  Almaden 
in  Upper  California,  and  the  dividends  which  to  said  shares  belong,  and 
likewise,  their  interest  in  the  business  house  of  Messrs.  Bolton,  Barron  & 
Co.,  of  San  Francisco,  California,  for  the  sum  of  three  hundred  and 
eighty  thousand  dollars,  payable  in  this  capital  in  the  following  manner ; 
one  hundred  and  eighty  thousand  dollars}  ($180,000)  cash  down,  which 
shall  be  counterbalanced  by  an  equal  sum,  which  a  little  more  or  less 
now  exists  in  the  hands  of  the  vendors  belonging  to  the  business  of 
the  aforesaid  mine :  one  hundred  thousand  dollars  in  three  months, 
($100,000),  and  one  hundred  thousand  dollars  ($100,000)  "in  six 
months"  from  the  date  hereof.  Yecker,  Torre  &  Co.,  shall  give  an 
account  to  Barron,  Forbes  &  Co.,  of  all  the  quicksilver  that  has  been 
consigned  to  them,  either  by  placing  at  the  disposition  of  the  parties 


515 

of  the  second  part,  the  stock  on  hand,  that  may  be  in  their  possession, 
or  that  of  their  correspondents,  or  delivering  the  accounts  of  the 
quantities  which  they  or  their  correspondents  might  have  sold  since 
the  last  account,  which  they  have  remitted  to  San  Francisco,  be  the 
same  in  fine  in  reals  for  the  sales  on  time  now  due.  Messrs.  Yecker, 
Torre  &  Co.,  remain  during  this  sale  exempt  from  guaranty  in  any 
case,  and  without  responsibility  whatever,  for  the  past  and  in  future, 
as  well  with  respect  to  the  house  in  San  Francisco,  and  shall  only  con- 
tribute on  their  part  to  the  expenses  of  the  mine,  until  the  thirtieth  of 
September  last  past,  in  conformity  with  the  account  of  supplies,  which 
the  Mess.  Bolton,  Barron  &  Co.,  have  passed  to  them  on  the  same 
date.  In  this  contract,  there  is  not  included  the  other  accounts 
which  exist  between  the  house  in  San  Francisco,  and  the  Messrs. 
Yecker,  Torre  &  Co.,  who  will  satisfy  the  balance  of  the  same,  if  it 
should  be  against  them,  or  they  shall  receive  it,  should  it  result  in 
their  favor. 

Yecker,  Torre  &  Co.,  cede  to  Barron,  Forbes  &  Co.,  at  cost  price 
and  charges,  ten  thousand  (10,000)  Quicksilver  flasks,  which  they 
have  ordered  from  England,  To  which  effect  Messrs.  Yecker,  Torre  & 
Co.  will  deliver  in  this  place  the  invoices,  which  they  have  already  in 
their  possession,  for  five  thousand  (5000)  flasks,  and  will  give  an  order 
to  their  correspondents  in  London,  to  deliver  the  balance,  as  the  same 
are  being  finished.  On  their  part,  Barron,  Forbes  &  Co.  will  charge 
their  correspondents  to  pay  to  Finlay,  Hodgson  &  Co.  of  London,  the 
price  and  other  costs,  relative  to  the  said  ten  thousand  flasks.  For 
the  security  of  the  parties  interested,  there  shall  be  executed  a  public 
Document,  in  the  legal  and  accustomed  forms,  which  document  shall 
serve  as  legal  title  to  the  purchasers,  and  to  the  vendors,  for  docu- 
ment for  the  collection  of  the  value  of  the  sale.  Whatever  doubt  or 
difference  that  might  occur,  in  regard  to  the  interpretation  of  the  Ar- 
ticles of  this  contract,  and  of  the  Deed  mentioned  in  the  foregoing  Ar- 
ticle, or  in  the  execution  of  what  one  or  the  other  disposes,  shall  be 
deeided  by  two  arbitrators,  one  chosen  by  each  party,  and  in  case  of 
disagreement,  by  a  third  arbitrator  whom  the  aforesaid  arbitrators  shall 
elect. 

Made  in  Duplicate,  in  Mexico,  on  the  twenty-seventh  of  November, 
one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  fifty-two. 

For  Barron,  Forbes  &  Co., 
EUSTACE  BARRON. 

YECKER,  TORRE  &  CO. 

Additional  Article. — For  the  better  understanding,  it  is  declared, 
that  by  the  words  of  an  Indenture,  in  the  legal  and  accustomed  forms, 


516 

it  is  understood,  that  the  houses  sold  are  especially  mortgaged  for  the 
security  of  the  payment  of  their  price,  as  it  is  also,  for  the  punctual 
fulfilment  of  the  obligations,  which  the  vendors  agree  to,  without  pre- 
judice to  the  general  mortgage. 

YECKER,  TORRE  &  CO. 

It  follows  that  Messrs.  Yecker,  Torre  &  Co.,  in  fulfilment  of  the 
pre-inserted  contract,  have  to  proceed  to  execute  the  Deed,  as  is  con- 
tained therein,  giving  it  effect,  in  that  manner  and  form  that  is  most 
in  accordance  with  law,  and  that  may  be  most  firm  and  valid ;  the 
aforesaid  Yecker,  Torre  &  Co.  stipulate,  that  in  the  terms,  and  under 
the  conditions,  which  are  heretofore  agreed  to,  in  the  insertion  of  the 
aforementioned  contract  of  the  twenty-seventh  of  November  last,  they 
sell  to  Barron,  Forbes  &  Co.,  for  themselves,  and  their  successors,  and 
for  those  that  from  them  may  derive  title  or  right,  forever,  and  with- 
out any  reserve,  the  three  and  a  half  supplying  shares,  and  the  four 
and  eleven-fourteenth  parts,  of  the  shares  supplied  as  aforesaid,  as  also 
they  likewise  sell  the  interest  they  had  in  the  commercial  house  in 
San  Francisco,  in  Upper  California,  established  under  the  firm  of  Bol- 
ton, Barron  &   Co.,  with  the   capital  of  Sixty  thousand  Dollars,  one- 
half  of  which  was  put  in  by  the  house  of  Yecker,  Torre  &  Co.,  and 
that  of  Barron,  Forbes   &  Co.,  and   they  likewise  sell   them,  ten 
thousand  Quicksilver  flasks,  all  in  the  sum  of  three  hundred  and 
eighty  thousand  Dollars,  and  besides  the  costs  and  charges  of  the 
Quicksilver  flasks,  which  sales  comprehend  all  that  which  did  and 
could  belong  to  the  interest  of  Yecker,  Torre  &  Co.  until  the  date  of 
contract  of  the  twenty-seventh  of  the  month  past ;  the  vendors  sub- 
stituting the  purchasers  in  their  stead,  and  ceding  to  them  in  the  terms 
aforesaid,  their  shares  such  as  they  possess  them,  without  giving  war- 
ranty, and  without  responsibility  of  any  kind,  for  the  past  or  for  the 
future,  as  well  with  respect  to  the  mine  of  N.  Almaden,  as  with  the 
house  in  San  Francisco.     That  in  consequence  of  the  respective  obli- 
gations, which  by  the  aforesaid  contracts  they  have  mutually  stipu- 
lated to,  Mess.  Yecker,  Torre  &  Co.  abandon,  quitclaim,  and  renounce, 
any  right,  dominion,  ownership  and  possession  to  the  aforesaid  shares, 
supplying  and  supplied,  of  N.  Almaden,  of  the  dominion,  ownership, 
and  possession  to  the  interest  in  the  business  of  San  Francisco,  and  of 
that  which  they  held  by  purchase  of  the  Ten  thousand  Quicksilver 
flasks,  and  they  transfer  all  the  aforesaid  rights  to  the  Mess.  Barron, 
Forbes  &  Co.  unto  them  and  their  successors,  with  the  full  property 
and  possession,  and  with  all  their  rights,  real,  personal,  profitable, 
mixed,  direct,  executive  and  others,  that  belong  to  them,  to  receive  all 
that  which  they  the  aforesaid  grantors  receive  from  the  said  business 
and  houses,  if  they  would  not  have  made  this  sale,  inclusive  of  the 
right  to  the  next  dividend,  which  account  is  being  rendered,  the  product 


517 

of  all  the  sales  made,  and  to  be  made,  of  the  Quicksilver  extracted 
turned  and  to  be  turned  to  account,  until  the  date  of  the  contract, 
and  of  the  profits  made  in  the  commercial  house  of  Bolton,  Barron  & 
Co.  up  to  the  same  date,  and  from  thenceforth,  there  being  compre- 
hended in  this  cession  and  sale  of  interests,  everything  which  might 
belong  to  the  grantors,  in  the  business,  be  the  same,  real,  personal,  or 
things  in  action.  The  aforesaid  Yecker,  Torre  &  Co.  obligate  them- 
selves to  render  an  account  of  all  the  quicksilver  which  they  have  re- 
ceived for  sale,  and  to  deliver  to  Mess.  Barron,  Forbes  &  Co.  all  the 
products  of  the  sales,  retaining  one  hundred  and  eighty  thousand  Dol- 
lars for  the  first  instalment,  in  payment  of  the  price  of  the  sale,  for 
which  is  contracted  in  this  Indenture,  and  to  place  at  their  disposal, 
the  documents  of  credits,  proceeding  from  the  sales  made  on  time 
of  said  Quicksilver,  which  was  consigned  to  them,  and  the  Quicksilver 
still  on  hand,  not  sold,  for  which  they  declare  to  have  drawn,  and  by 
timely  orders.  They  obligate  themselves,  in  fine,  to  deliver  to  Barron, 
Forbes  &  Co.  the  amount  ot  the  expenses  of  the  business  of  N.  Al- 
maden,  of  the  interest  that  belonged  to  them,  to  the  thirteenth  of  Sep- 
tember of  this  year,  in  conformity  to  the  account,  that  up  to  this  date 
the  Mess.  Bolton,  Barron  &  Co.  have  passed  to  them.  And  Mr. 
Eustace  Barron,  in  representation  of  Mess.  Barron,  Forbes  &  Co.,  ac- 
cepts the  sale  and  cession  of  the  shares  of  New  Almaden,  that  of  the 
interest  in  the  firm  in  California,  and  that  of  the  ten  thousand  quick- 
silver flasks,  in  the  terms  and  under  the  terms  and  under  the  condi- 
tions heretofore  agreed  to,  and  that  for  said  house,  he  undertakes  to 
make  the  payment  of  the  three  hundred  and  eighty  thousand  Dollars, 
in  the  terms  and  times  referred  to,  and  consents  in  that,  Mess. 
Yecker,  Torre  &  Co.  remain  exempt  from  the  eviction  and  guaranty, 
for  all  the  past  and  the  future,  concerning  the  partnership  and  busi- 
ness of  New  Almaden,  and  in  the  house  of  Bolton,  Barron  &  Co.  of 
San  Francisco,  without  prejudice  to  the  obligations  of  Mess.  Yecker, 
Torre  &  Co.,  to  liquidate  and  balance  their  private  accounts,  pending 
with  the  same  house  in  San  Francisco,  and  to  pay  the  costs  and  charges 
of  the  Quicksilver  flasks  as  is  expressed  in  the  contract,  of  the  twen- 
ty-seventh of  November  last  past,  which  payments  they  shall  make,  in 
this  City,  without  fail,  excuse,  or  delay  whatever,  and  indispensably  in 
good  Silver  Dollars  of  the  present  Mexican  currency,  and  for  the  se- 
curity of  the  foregoing  and  without  the  general  obligation  of  property, 
being  either  derogatory  or  prejudicial  to  the  special  obligation,  nor 
vice  versa,  inasmuch,  Messrs.  Yecker,  Torre  &  Co.  may  use  that 
which  to  them  seems  best.  Mr.  Barron  mortgages,  for  his  house  of 
Barron,  Forbes  &  Co.,  the  varrasand  shares  that  he  has  bought  in  the 
said  mine  of  Almaden,  and  other  things  that  are  expressed  in  the  pre- 
sent Indenture,  agreeing  that  this  special  mortgage  furnishes  all  the 
legal  means  for  the  security  of  the  vendors,  with  the  condition,  that 


518 

he  shall  either  present  authority,  in  the  term  of  a  month,  from  the 
house  of  Barron,  Forbes  &  Co.,  or  he  shall  ratify  this,  the  contract, 
which  is  herein  contained.  And  for  the  observance,  keeping  and  ful- 
filment of  the  pre-inserted,  Mess.  Yecker,  Torre  &  Co.  obligate  them- 
selves, with  their  effects,  present  and  future,  and  Mr.  Barron,  with 
those  of  his  firm,  which  he  represents,  in  possession  or  in  expectancy, 
and  with  them,  they  submit  themselves  to  the  power  and  jurisdiction 
of  the  Judges,  who  might  or  should  have  cognizance  of  their  actions, 
according  to  law,  so  that  they  may  compel  and  bind  them  to  the  same, 
as  if  it  were  by  sentence  agreed  upon,  and  passed  in  authority  of  final 
judgment,  and  they  renounce  the  laws  of  their  favor  and  defence  with 
the  general  privileges  ;  so  they  executed  and  signed  this,  being  wit- 
ness, Don  Crescencto  Landgrave,  Don  Francisco  Lara,  and 
Don  Antonio  Ferriero,  of  this  vicinity,  to  which  I  certify. 

YECKER,  TORRE  &  CO. 
EUSTACE  BARRON. 

Ramon  de  la  Cueva,  Nacional  and  Public  Notary. 

A  copy  made  on  behalf  of  the  vendors,  after  the  execution  thereof, 
and  is  written  on  seven  leaves,  the  first  leaf  on  first  class  stamp,  and 
the  rest  on  fourth  class,  of  the  biennial  current  year,  which  I  certify 
is  corrected. 

RAMON  DE  LA  CUEVA, 
(National  and  Notary  Public,)  E.  N.  &  P. 

We,  the  undersigned  Notaries,  hereby  certify  and  affirm,  that  Don 
Ramon  de  la  Cueva  is  a  National  and  Public  Notary  of  the  number 
which  there  are  in  this  capital,  and  that  the  Seal  and  Signature  with 
which  he  authorizes  the  foregoing  testimony  are  his,  and  moreover, 
that  the  same  are  entitled  to  full  faith  and  credit,  in  law  or  otherwise. 

In  testimony  whereof,  we  hereunto  sign,  and  affix  the  Seal  of  our 
National  College,  in  the  City  of  Mexico,  on  the  eleventh  of  December, 
one  thousand,  eight  hundred  and  fifty-two. 

, ,  MANUEL  DE  MUDARIOMA. 

Q  )  CRESENT  LANDGRAVE. 

FERMIN  VILLA. 


519 

[  0.  H.  No.  46.  ] 

DEED — FROM  CASTILLERO  TO  BILLINGS. 

This  indenture,  made  the  second  day  of  October,  in  the  year  of 
our  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  fifty-six  : 

Between  Andres  Castillero,  formerly  of  Upper  California,  and  now 
a  resident  of  the  State  of  Mexico,  in  the  Republic  of  Mexico,  party 
of  the  first  part,  and  Frederick  Billings  of  San  Francisco,  in  the  State 
of  California,  and  United  States  of  America,  party  of  the  second 
part,  witnesseth, 

That  the  said  party  of  the  first  part,  for  and  in  consideration  of  the 
sum  of  one  hundred  dollars,  lawful  money  of  the  United  States  of 
America,  to  him  in  hand  paid  by  the  said  party  of  the  second  part,  at 
or  before  the  sealing  and  delivery  of  these  presents,  the  receipt 
whereof  is  hereby  acknowledged  and  other  good  and  valuable  consi- 
derations him  moving  thereto,  has  granted,  bargained,  sold  and  con- 
veyed, and  hy  these  presents  does  grant,  bargain,  sell  and  convey, 
unto  the  said  party  of  the  second  part  and  to  his  heirs  and  assigns  for 
ever,  all  that  tract  of  land  and  mine  called  the  land  and  mine  of  New 
Almaden,  (formerly  called  "Santa  Clara,")  lying  and  situate  in  the 
county  of  Santa  Clara,  in  the  State  of  California,  being  the  mining 
right  acquired  by  denouncement  and  registry  of  discovery,  and  by 
the  possession  and  grant  of  the  same,  and  of  three  thousand  varas  of 
land  measured  in  every  direction  from  the  mouth  of  the  mine,  given 
and  made  by  Antonio  Maria  Pico,  First  Alcalde,  to  the  party  of  the 
first  part,  on  the  thirtieth  day  of  December  in  the  year  of  our  Lord 
one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  forty-five,  and  subsequently  approved 
and  confirmed  by  the  Junta  de  Mineria,  and  the  President  of  Mexico, 
and  the  tract  of  two  square  leagues  of  land' in  a  square  form  the  oppo- 
site sides  of  which  lie  north,  south,  east  and  west,  respectively,  in  the 
middle  of  which  is  situated  the  mouth  of  the  said  mine,  being  the  same 
land  granted  to  the  party  of  the  first  part  by  the  President  of  Mexico, 
on  the  twentieth  of  May  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight 
hundred  and  forty  six,  the  title,  with  order  of  possession  of  which, 
was  issued  by  the  Minister  of  Relations  on  the  twenty-third  of  May, 
in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  forty-six, 
and  signed  by  Castillo  Lanzas,  minister  of  said  department :  together 
with  all  and  singular  the  tenements,  hereditaments  and  appurtenances 
thereunto  belonging  or  in  anywise  appertaining,  and  the  reversion  and 
reversions,  remainder  and  remainders,  rents,  issues  and  profits  there- 
of. And  also  all  the  estate,  right,  title,  interest,  property,  possession, 
claim  and  demand  whatsoever  as  well  in  law  as  in  equity,  of  the  said 
party  of  the  first  part,  of,  in,  or  to  the  above  described  premises,  and 
every  part  and  parcel  thereof,  with  the  appurtenances : 


520 

To  have  and  to  hold,  all  and  singular  the  above  mentioned  and  des- 
cribed premises,  together  with  the  appurtenances,  unto  the  said  party 
of  the  second  part,  and  his  assigns  for  ever. 

In  witness  whereof,  the  said  party  of  the  first  part  has  hereunto  set 
his  hand  and  seal  the  day  and  year  first  above  written. 

Signed,  sealed  and  delivered  in  the  presence  of 

Eustace  H.  Barron. 
Saml.  L.  Denison. 

ANDRES  CASTILLERO.      \  seal 


No.  207. 

Consulate  of  the  United  States  of  America, 
for  the  City  of  Mexico. 

On  this  second  day  of  October,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thou- 
sand eight  hundred  and  fitty-six,  before  me,  John  Black,  United  States 
Consul  for  the  City  of  Mexico,  personally  appeared  Andres  Castillero, 
known  to  me  to  be  the  individual  described  in  and  who  executed  the 
foregoing  conveyance,  and  acknowledged  that  he  executed  the  same 
freely  and  voluntarily,  for  the  uses  and  purposes  therein  mentioned. 

In  witness  whereof,  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand,  and  affixed  my 
official  seal,  in  the  City  of  Mexico  aforesaid,  the  day  and  year  first 
above  written. 

Register  H.  folio  182. 

|  seal  }  JOHN  BLACK, 

I 9  U.  S.  Consul. 

Fees  $2  00. 


0.  H.  No.  47. 

FREDERICK  BILLINGS  TO  WILLIAM  E.  BARRON. 

This  Indenture  made  the  eighteenth  day  of  November  in  the  year 
of  Our  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  fifty-six,  between  Fred- 
erick Billings  of  the  City  of  San  Francisco  in  the  State  of  California, 
party  of  the  first  part,  and  William  E.  Barron  of  said  City  of  Fran- 
cisco, party  of  the  second  part : 

Witnesseth,  that,  whereas  Andres  Castillero,  formerly  of  Upper 
California,  and  now  of  the  Republic  of  Mexico,  became  the  owner  of 
the  Quicksilver  Mine  of  New  Almaden  (formerly  called  "  Santa  Cla- 


521 

ra")  lying  and  situate  in  the  County  of  Santa  Clara,  by  denouncement 
and  registry  of  discovery,  and  by  receiving  the  juridical  possession  and 
grant  of  the  same,  and  of  three  thousand  varas  of  land  measured  in 
every  direction  from  the  mouth  of  said  mine,  given  and  made  by  An- 
tonio Maria  Pico,  First  Alcalde,  to  the  said  Andres  Castillero  on  the 
thirtieth  day  of  December  in  the  year  of  Our  Lord  one  thousand  eight 
hundred  and  forty-five  :  and  Whereas  the  President  of  Mexico,  on  the 
twentieth  day  of  May  in  the  year  of  Our  Lord  one  thousand  eight 
hundred  and  forty-six,  granted  to  said  Andres  Castillero  for  the  use  of 
said  mine  the  tract  of  two  square  leagues  of  land  in  a  square  form, 
the  opposite  sides  of  which  lie  North,  South,  East  and  West  respect- 
ively, in  the  middle  of  which  is  situated  the  mouth  of  said  mine,  the 
document  of  title  and  order  of  possession  of  which  said  land  was  is- 
sued to  said  Castillero  by  Castillo  Lanzas,  Minister  of  Relations,  on 
the  twenty-third  day  of  May  in  the  year  of  Our  Lord  one  thousand 
eight  hundred  and  forty-six :  and  Whereas  by  a  writing  of  partnership 
signed  by  the  said  Andres  Castillero  on  the  second  day  of  November 
in  the  year  of  Our  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  forty-five, 
with  Jose'  Castro,  Secundino  Robles  and  Teodoro  Robles  and  Friar 
Jos6  M.  del  R.  S.  del  Real,  the  said  Secundino  and  Teodoro  Robles 
were  made  partners  and  owners  in  said  Mine  of  four  barras,  or  one- 
sixth  part  thereof:  and  Whereas  the  said  Secundino  and  Teodoro  Ro- 
bles, on  the  fourteenth  day  of  September  in  the  year  of  Our  Lord  one 
thousand  eight  hundred  and  forty-seven,  sold  and  conveyed  two  of  the 
said  four  barras,  or  one-twelfth  part  of  the  said  mine  to  James  Alex- 
ander Forbes :  and  Whereas  the  said  James  Alexander  Forbes  on  the 
twenty-ninth  day  of  May  in  the  year  of  Our  Lord  one  thousand  eight 
hundred  and  fifty-five,  sold  and  conveyed  to  the  party  of  the  second 
part  one  barra  or  one  twenty-fourth  part  of  said  mine  and  lands :  and 
Whereas  the  said  Andres  Castillero  on  the  second  day  of  October  in 
the  year  of  Our  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  fifty-six  sold 
and  conveyed  to  the  party  of  the  first  part  all  his  right,  title,  interest, 
estate,  property,  possession,  claim  and  demand  in  and  to  the  said  mine 
of  New  Almaclen,  and  the  said  two  leagues  of  land  so  granted  by  the 
President  of  Mexico :  Now  therefore,  the  said  party  of  the  first  part^ 
for  and  in  consideration  of  the  sum  of  one  hundred  Dollars  law&I 
money  of  the  United  States  of  America,  to  him  in  hand  paid  by-  the 
said  party  of  the  second  part,  at  or  before  the  ensealing  and  defyery 
of  these  presents,  the  receipt  whereof  is  hereby  acknowledged,  and 
other  good  and  valuable  considerations  him  moving  thereunto,  has 
granted,  bargained,  sold,  conveyed  and  confirmed,  and  by  these  pre- 
sents does  grant,  bargain,  sell,  convey  and  confirm  unto  tke  said  party 
of  the  second  part,  and  to  his  heirs  and  assigns  forever,  one  undivided 
twenty-fourth  part  of  all  that  tract  of  land  and  mine  called  the  land 
and  mine  of  New  Almaden  (formerly  called  "  Santa  Clara"),  lying 
41 


522 

and  situate  in  the  County  of  Santa  Clara  in  the  State  of  California, 
being  the  mining  right  acquired  by  denouncement  and  registry  of  dis- 
covery, and  by  the  possession  and  grant  of  the  same,  and  of  three 
thousand  varas  of  land  measured  in  every  direction  from  the  mouth  of 
the  mine,  given  and  made  by  Antonia  Maria  Pico,  First  Alcalde,  to 
the  said  Andres  Castillero  on  the  thirtieth  day  of  December  in  the  year 
of  Our  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  forty-five,  and  subse- 
quently approved  and  confirmed  by  the  Junta  de  Mineria  and  the  Pre- 
sident of  Mexico,  and  the  tract  of  two  square  leagues  of  land  in  a  square 
form,  the  opposite  sides  of  which  lie  North,  South,  East  and  West  res- 
pectively, in  the  middle  of  which  is  situate  the  mouth  of  said  mine, 
being  the  same  land  granted  to  said  Andres  Castillero  by  the  Presi- 
dent of  Mexico  on  the  twentieth  day  of  May  in  the  year  of  Our  Lord 
one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  forty-six,  the  title,  w7ith  order  of  pos- 
session of  which  was  issued  by  the  Minister  of  Relations  on  the  twen- 
ty-third day  of  Our  Lord,  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  forty-six, 
and  signed  by  Castillo  Lanzas,  Minister  of  said  Department  of  Rela- 
tions, together  with  all  and  singular  the  tenements,  hereditaments  and 
appurtenances  belonging  or  in  any  way  pertaining  to  the  said  one  un- 
divided twenty-fourth  part  of  said  Mine  andJLands,  and  the  reversion 
and  reversions,  remainder  and  remainders,  rents,  issues  and  profits 
thereof. 

To  have  and  to  hold  all  and  singular  the  above  mentioned  and  des- 
cribed premises,  together  with  the  appurtenances,  unto  the  said  party 
of  the  second  part  and  to  his  assigns  forever. 

In  witness  whereof  the  said  party  of  the  first  part  has  hereunto  set 
his  hand  and  seal  the  day  and  year  first  above  written. 

FREDERICK  BILLINGS,  [l.  s.] 

Signed  Sealed  and  delivered  ) 
jn  presence  of  \ 


State  of  'Californa, 
City  and  County  of  San  Francico. 


ss. 


On  this  eighteenth  day  of  November,  A.  D.  one  thousand  eight 
hundred  and  fifty-six,  before  me  J.  R.  West  a  Notary  Public  in  and 
for  said  County  personally  appeared  Frederick  Billings  to  me  person- 
ally known  to  be  the  individual  described  in  and  who  executed  the  an- 
nexed Instrument,  and  acknowledged  to  me  that  he  executed  the  same 
freely  and  voluntarily  and  for  the  uses  and  purposes  therein  men- 
tioned. 


523 

In  witness  whereof  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  affixed  my  of- 
ficial seal  the  day  and  year  first  above  written. 

J.  R.  WEST, 


L.  S.  )  Notary  Public. 


0.  H.  No.  48. 


"  D.  P.  L."  Exhibited  hi  the  Deposition  of  Jose  Maria  Lafragua,  Jan- 
nary  29th,  1855.     [See  pages  480  and  69.] 

Page  119.  DE    SU    OFICINA. 

La  junta  de  fomento  y  administrativa  de  Mineria,  instalada  en  24 
de  Diciembre  de  1842,  para  cumplir  con  lo  prevenido  en  el  articulo 
decimo  del  decreto  de  su  organizacion,  remitio  al  ministerio  respectivo 
en  Noviembre  de  843  el  proyecto  de  reglamento,  que  habia  a  fomado 
para  la  mas  econdmica  y  fiel  administracion  de  los  fondos  que  se  le 
confiaron  ;  pero  el  Gobierno  teniendo  presente  que  no  podia  llenar  sus 
importantes  atenciones  sin  las  manos  necesarios  para  su  desempeno, 
decret6  en  30  de  Diciembre  la  planta  de  sus  empleados,  y  le  devolvio 
el  proyecto  en  Julio  de  44,  para  que  lo  formase  de  nuevo  con  arreglo 
a  las  disposiciones  posteriores.  Ella  en  enero  del  mismo  solicito  la 
aprobacion  del  articulo  29  del  reglamento  propuesto,  sobre  que  a  cado 
fondo  se  Uevase  cuenta  separada,  carganrlo  al  dotal  las  cantitades  que 
se  satisfacion  por  sueldos  en  el  anterior  estabecimiento  y  al  de  azogue 
los  que  se  aumentaban,  y  le  remitid  las  respectivas  propuestas  para  la 
provision  de  las  plazas,  quedando  aprobadas  las  de  dos  oficiales  y  otros 
tantos  escribientes  de  su  secretaria,  la  de  archivero,  la  de  contador,  la 
de  dos  oficiales  y  un  escribiente  de  contaduria,  y  finalmente,  la  de  tes- 
orero  :  todas  los  cuales  tomaron  posesion  de  sus  destinos  en  los  dias 
10  de  Febrero,  4  y  7  de  Marzo,y  en  8  del  mismo  reglament6la  Junta 
provisionalmente  su  oftcina  designando  a  cada  uno  de  los  empleados 
sus  correspondientes  labores. 

En  19  de  Mayo  de  845,  el  Supremo  Gobierno  nombro  4  los  Sres. 
D.  Benigno  Bustamente,  Lie,  D.  Jose  Maria  Lacunza,  y  D.  LuisVa- 
rela,  para  que  le  informaron  sobre  los  decretos,  que  organizaron  nueva- 
mente  el  Colegio  de  Mineria,  autorizando  a  la  comision  para  inspec- 
cionar  el  Seminario  y  oficina  de  la  Junta.  El  informe  que  elevaron  al 
Supremo  Gobierno  se  paso  a  la  misma,  y  esta  presidente  de  su  examen. 

Por  haber  fallecido  el  primer  escribiente  de  secretaria  D.  Manuel 
Garcia  del  Valle  el  Supremo  Gobierno  aprobo  el  ascen»so  del  segundo, 
quedando  sin  proveerse  la  del  primero. 


524 

En  23  de  Septiembre  del  presente  ano,  la  Junta  concedio*  licencia  a 
su  secretario  D.  Jose  Maria  Castera,  a  quien  tuvo  4  bien  encomendar 
el  Supremo  Gobierno  una  comission,  y  qued6  desempeiiando  sus  fun- 
ciones  el  oficial  1°.  con  arreglo  al  decreto  citado  de  80  de  Diciembre 
de  842. 


*  *  *  * 

*  *  *  * 

*  *  *  * 

*  *  *  * 

*  *  *  * 

*  *  #  * 

*  *  *  * 

*  *  *  * 

*  *  *  * 

*  *  *  * 

*  *  '  *  * 

*  *  *  * 

*  *  *  * 

*  *  *  * 


Page  130.  AZOGUES. 

El  primer  ap£ndice  de  la  ultima  Memoria  del  ministerio  de  justicia 
e*  instruccion  publica  contiene  lo  que  compendiosamente  espuso  la 
Junta  en  24  de  febrero  de  844,  sobre  las  medidas  adoptadas  por  el 
gobierno  provisional  en  favor  del  ramo,  los  resultados  que  habian  pro- 
ducido  hasta  la  propria  fecha  y  las  que  a  su  juicio  debian  tomarse  para 
que  no  se  hicieran  ilusorios  los  fines  laudables,  con  que  aquellas  se 
espidieron. 

El  periodico  Siglo  XIX.  en  sus  numeros  1361  y  1362  de  21  y  22 
de  Agosto  de  845,  inserto  un  comunicado  del  Diario  de  la  Marina  de 
la  Habana  de  3  de  Junio  anterior  en  que  se  indican  las  franquicias, 
que  en  concepto  del  articulista  debierin  adoptarse  en  la  tarifa  de  la 
Isla  de  Cuba,  para  que  se  efectuase  el  transito  por  su  deposito  de 
parte  de  los  azogues  destinados  &  Mexico,  que  hoy  conducen  los  vapo- 
res  britanicos,  con  lo  que  estaba  persuadido,  se  obtendrian  ventajas 
eensibles  4  favor  de  la  Marina  y  del  comercio  de  aquella  nacion,  la 
cual  en  virtud  de  su  influencia  y  de  otros  varias  circumstancias  podria 
con  el  tiempo  favorecer  mejor  sus  interesas  y  los  de  la  Republica  por 
medio  de  tratados  convenientes. 

A  juicio  del  autor  remitiendose  el  azogue  &  dicha  Isla,  mientras  que 
no  se  pida  para  el  consumo  de  nuestro  pais,  y  conservandose  los  capi- 
tales  espanoles  en  aquel  distrito  con  las  garantias  de  su  gobierno,  po- 
dria lograrse,  que  sus  habitantes  tomasen  parta  en  el  negocio,  usando 
de  sus  proprios  recursos,  para  sostenerlo  y  fecilitarlo,  dividiendose  en 
consecuencia  los    riesgos  y  los  desembolsos ;    porque  venderian  sus 


525 

azogues  en  la  Habana,  cuantos  en  los  envios  directos  no  quisieran 
correr  nuevos  peligros  ;  j  por  que  los  grandes  intereses,  que  en  la  Re- 
publica  paga  el  numerario  facilitarian  la  doble  operacion,  minorando 
las  exhibiciones,  supuesto  que  existiendo  el  azogue  en  poder  del  agente 
en  la  Habana,  este  proporcionario  sin  duda  k  los  Mexicanos  medios 
adecuados,  para  comprarlo  en  Espaila  con  las  garantias  de  algunos 
banqueros  Quropeos. 

page  13L  En  el  proyecto,  pues,  se  propone  la  destruccion  del  monopolio 
de  azouges,  abriendose  al  efecto  un  mercado  para  su  compra  de  pri- 
mera  mano,  y  en  el  ultimo  caso,  con  un  pequeiio  aumento  en  el  valor, 
repartible  entre  los  individuos  6  corporaciones,  que  en  la  empresa  re- 
sultaran  agraciados. 

Pero  atendiendo  a  que  el  gobierno  podio  necesitar  de  algunas  anti- 
cipaciones  sobre  la  renta,  tal  vez  equivalentes  k  las  ecsigidas  en  la  ulti- 
ma contrata,  juzga  oportuno,  que  con  tiempo  tomara  parte  la  Eepub- 
lica,  para  que  se  hiciese  un  negocio  entre  el  banco  de  Isabel  Segunda 
a  otro  establecimiento  nacional  y  gobierno  de  Madrid,  a  ejemplo  del 
que  tenia  arreglado  el  Ministerio  Mon  con  el  banco  de  San  Fernando. 

Supdnese  en  el  articulo,  que  el  capital  padria  formase,  contribuyendo 
el  proprio  Banco,  algunas  casas  de  Europa  por  medio  de  suscriciones 
y  los  Mexicanos  por  el  de  esta  Junta ;  y  que  se  cediera  k  los  accion- 
istas  la  parte  que  dejara  al  mismo  Banco  la  administracion  y  venta  de 
azogues,  consignandole  estos  con  las  guarantias  convenientes. 

Cree  tambien  el  articulista  que  de  Me'xico  pudiera  ofrecerse  directa- 
mente  al  gobierno  espanol  el  pr^stamo  de  una  suma  considerable  por 
cierto  numero  de  alios,  siempre  que  se  comprometiera  a  renunciar  a 
otras  eontratas,  espendiendo  el  efecto  a  un  precio  determinado. 

Tales  son,  sobre  poco  mas  6  menos,  las  bases  primordiales  de  uno  de 
los  proyectos  formados  para  que  In  Espana  enagenase  sus  azogues  en 
te*rminos  proprios  a  obtener  immensas  ventajas  del  comercio  recip- 
rico,  que  hasta  hoy  hace  esclusivamente  la  Inglaterra ;  y  la  Junta  al 
dar  a  V.  E.  esta  idea  del  de  la  Habana,  solo  lleva  por  fin  el  de  recor- 
darle  la  necesidad  urgentisima  que  hay,  de  que  se  adopte  e*sta  u.  otro 
cualquiera,  para  cubrir  con  menores  quebrantos  el  gran  deficiente, 
que  deja  el  azogue  Mexicano  en  los  consumos  de  las  minas,  especial- 
mente  cuando  la  contrata  celebrada  conja  casa  de  Roschild  termina 
en  el  ano  entrante,  y  el  Soberano  Congreso  podia  facultar  a  la  Junta 
como  lo  hiso  en  17  de  Febrero  de  1848,  por  en  decreto  del  mismo  dia. 

En  el  peri6dico  de  Tampico  de  Tamaulipas,  la  Esperanza  numero 
11  de  12  de  Marzo  del  anterior  ano,  los  editores  copiaron  una  carta  de 
San  Luis  Potosi,  que  anunciaba  una  bouanza  de  azogue  en  Guadal- 
cazar,  la  que  indicaba  la  extraccion  de  mas  de  tres  quintales  diarios. 

La  Junta  en  26  del  propio  mesofici6  al  respectivo  gobierno,  pididndole 
noticias  por  menovizadas  del  descubrimiento  con  el  fin  de  fomentar  su 
laboreo  y  beneficio. 


526 

En  2  de  Abril  contesto :  que  tenia  pedido  el  correspondiente  informe, 
y  que  tan  luego  como  lo  obtuviera,  lo  remitiria  a  la  Junta,  confirmando 
la  noticia  k  pesar  de  que  los  aparatos  destilatorios  eran  de  barro ;  dijo 
que  en  aguellos  dias  se  habian  introducido  varias  partidas  hasta  de 
veinte  frascos,  y  que  se  habian  contratado  para  Guanajuato  algunas 
remesas  mensuales. 

Como  por  la  mejora  de  los  mismos  aparatos  deberia  obtenerse  el 
incremento  de  Guadalcazar  aprovecharse  toda  la  ley  del  metal,  que 
hoy  se  pierde,  conscguirse  la  estabilidad  de  los  productos  y  lograrse  la 
fundacion  de  economias  en  toda  clase  de  gastos,  el  gobierno  del  Depar- 
tamento  quiso,  que  cuanto  antes  se  hiciera  una  visita  cientifica  y  la 
Junta  en  16  de  Abril,  aunque  se  hallaba  al  alcance  de  las  ventajas 
que  resultarian  de  mandar  una  persona  inteligente,  que  contribuyera  & 
la  mejor  direccion  del  laboreo  de  los  criaderos  de  Guadalcazar  y  con 
especialidad  a  la  mas  economica  y  abundante  destilacion  del  azogue, 
contesto :  que  entonces  no  podia  hacerlo  por  la  falta  de  fondos. 

El  periodico  citado  en  su  ntimero  16  de  2  de  Abril  volvio  a  hablar 
de  los  progresos,  que  se  hacian  en  Guadalcazar,  asegurando,  que  en 
cuatro  dias  se  extrajeron  cuatro  quintales  habiendo  habido  arroba  de 
metal  que  sin  diese  diez  y  siete  onzas,  no  obstante  la  grande  evaporacion, 
rage  i32.  que  era  preciso  resultase  de  la  poca  inteligencia,  con  que  el 
metal  se  beneficiaba ;  que  habia  cuatro  minas  en  trabajo  y  sesenta 
denunciadas ;  y  que  al  desarrollarse  el  espiritu  de  empresa  habia  pro- 
ducido  muchos  rescatadores  de  metal  en  piedra. 

A  reserva  de  remitir  datos  mas  precisos,  el  gobierno  departmental 
en  10  de  Mayo  acompano  copia  del  informe  dado  por  la  prefectura  de 
San  Luis  en  5  del  mismo.  De  el  aparece  que  segun  las  investiga- 
ciones  practicadas  en  la  mina  de  San  Antonio,  a  demas  de  las  vetas, 
mantos  y  rebozaderos  casi  superficiales,  que  se  trabajan,  habia  ya 
resultado  un  segundo  manto  a\  treinta  varas  de  profundidad,  cuyos 
metales  de  ley  superior,  pues  que  rendian  de  cuatro  a  cinco  libras  por 
carga,  podrian  aumentar  considerablemente  sus  productos,  perfeccion 
andose  los  aparatos  de  beneficio,  que  consisten  hoy  casi  totalmente  en 
cantaros  con  tubos  de  barro  y  conductores  de  metal ;  que  se  confirma- 
ban  las  especies  de  que  el  terreno  esplotable  occupaba  una  superficie 
de  cinco  leguas  cuadradas,  ^)Oco  mas  6  menos ;  que  su  situacion  se 
halla  al  Norte  de  Guadalcazar  y  circundada  toda  de  abundantes 
maderas,  que  conforme  a  lo  espuesto  por  el  juzgado  minero  respectivo, 
hasta  el  26  de  Abril  habian  sido  descubiertas  en  su  jurisdiccion  ochenta 
y  dos  minas :  que  no  se  habian  emprendido  otras  obras  que  las  muy 
precisas  para  quemar  en  lodo,  que  es  el  me*todo  mas  comunmente 
usado  ;  que  de  todas  las  minas  solo  cuatro  se  hallaban  en  frutos :  que 
de  la  de  San  Antonio,  la  mas  productiva,  se  sacaban  cincuenta  cargas 
diarias  con  ley  2,  3  y  4  libras,  no  sabi&idose  con  esactitud  los  pro- 
ductos de  las  otras :  que  con  el  mal  me*todo  del  beneficio,  no  se  apro- 


527 

vechaba  toda  la  ley  que  tienen :  que  habia  en  las  immediaciones  algun 
surtido  de  lefia  y  agua,  y  que  las  demas  minas  registradas  se  trabaja- 
ban  en  obra  incierta,  dando  la  major  parte  muestras  del  panino,  en 
que  se  cria  el  cusabrio. 

El  ministerio  de  justicia  con  fecha  7  de  Junio  transcribio  a  la  Junta 
un  oficio  del  gobierno  de  San  Luis  de  31  de  Mayo,  acompanando  copia 
de  otro  de  la  asamblea  departmental,  que  contiene  la  siguiente  propo- 
sicion. 

"  Se  escitara  por  conducto  del  gobierno  del  Departamento  y  con 
conocimiento  del  supremo  de  la  Republica,  a  la  Junta  de  fomento  de 
Mineria  de  Mexico,  para  que  situe  un  fondo  de  rescate  de  azogue  en 
el  mineral  de  Guadalcazar,  par  ahora  de  veinte  mil  pesos,  y  para  que, 
a  espensas  de  sus  fondos,  construya  los  aparatos  de  guerna  mas 
necesarios  y  utiles,  en  que  por  sus  costos  se  beneficien  los  metales  de 
azogue  de  aguellas  minas,  calculado  solo  un  pequeno  aumento,  para 
indemnizacion  de  los  gastos  de  su  construccion."  La  Junta  contest6 
al  supremo  gobierno  en  18  del  mismo  mes,  confesando  la  conveniencia 
del  reconocimiento  y  la  de  que  se  establecieran  los  aparatos  quejan- 
dose  al  mismo  tiempo  de  la  falta  de  fondos  y  haciendo  presente  la 
necesidad  que  habia,  de  que  se  espeditaran  los  pagos  entorpecidos  de 
los  fondos  destinados  por  la  ley,  para  el  fomento  del  ramo  de  azogues. 

El  director  general  de  industria  en  14  de  diclio  mes,  acompafio  una 
esposicion  de  la  Junta  industrial  de  San  Luis,  en  que  con  fecha  1  del 
mismo  y  al  escitar  4  esta  de  fomento,  para  que  protegiese  eficazmente 
a  Guadalcazar,  a  fin  de  evitar  que  decayera,  como  no  seria  remoto 
sin  tan  indispensable  auxilio,  mientras  que  con  el  podia  asegurarse  un 
£xito  brillante,  solicitaba  el  reconocimiento  cientifico,  aparatos  perfec- 
cionados  de  beneficio  y  la  ereccion  de  un  rescate  ;  pero  la  Junta  tuvo 
el  sentimiento  de  manifestarle  su  carencia  de  fondos  ;  agregando  que 
habiendolos  pedido  en  19  del  mismo  al  supremo  gobierno,  el  superior 
de  San  Luis  designara  la  persona  6  personas  que  en  aquel  mineral  se 
encargara  de  custodiar  el  dinero  que  hubiese  de  servirpara  el  rescate, 
ase*  como  cle  la  compra  y  venta  del  azogue,  caucionando  al  efecto  el 
comisionado  suficientemente  su  manejo. 

El  mismo  gobierno  en  9  de  Julio  avis6  en  contestacion,  que  los  pocos 
individuos  capaces,  que  habia  en  el  espesado  mineral,  los  consideraba 
ocupados  en  sus  proprios  negocios,  creyendo  por  tanto  mas  oportuno 
elegir  una  persona  de  San  Luis,  que  por  si  6  por  medio  de  un  agente, 
bajo  su  responsabilidad  desempenase  el  encargo. 

La  Junta  en  20  de  Agosto  del  ailo  anterior,  manifesto  al  gobierno 
de  San  Luis,  que  sin  embargo  de  los  escaseces  del  fondo,  situaria  alle 
des  de  luego  cuatro  mil  pesos  para  el  establecimiento  del  rescate  de 
azogues  en  caldo  en  el  repetido  mineral,  sin  otra  restriccion  que  la  de 
que  se  conservera  sin  menoscabo  la  suma  indicada,  &  cuyo  fin  podia 
formar  y  remitir  el  reglamento  correspondiente,  comprendiendo  en  el 


528 

un  nie*todo  adecuado,  para  favorecer  a  los  esplotadores  del  azogue  y  & 
los  mineros  que  lo  compraran,  cubriendo  todos  los  gastos  de  administra- 
cion  6  indemnizando  4  la  persona,  que  se  encargara  de  ella,  bajo  los 
respectivas  garantias,  y  desiguar  al  individuo  que  hubiera  de  servio  la 
comision,  ya  fuese  de  San  Luis  6  de  Guadalcazar.  Dicho  Gobierno 
avis6  en  27  de  Agosto,  estar  ocupandose  ya  del  establecimiento  de  la 
agencia. 

Posteriormente  el  juzgado  de  Guadalcazar  en  30  de  Octubre  del 
ano  pasado  manifesto,  que  las  minas  de  cinabrio  registradas  llezaban  a 
ciento  vienticinco,  los  denunciadas  &  treinta  y  tres,  y  que  aquel  estra- 
ordinario  criadero  daba  lugar  k  que  se  situasen  muchas  mas  de  los  es- 
tablecidas  hasta  entonces,  pues  siguiendose  los  bocas  antiguas,  que 
parece  fueron  desde  tiempo  inmemorial  trabajados  por  los  indigenas, 
aunque  no  haya  de  ello  noticia  alguna  en  el  archivo  del  tribunal,  se 
dilatan  los  esearbaderos  como  seis  leguas  en  circunferencia  del  mineral 
de  plata,  teniendo  una  legua  en  su  menor  anchura,  causa  por  lo  que 
juzgaba  debia  encontrarse  alii  un  gran  dep6sito  y  mas  cuando  se  ve 
que  algunas  de  los  minas  trabajados  antiguamente  manifiestan  por  sus 
terreros  una  profundidad  hasta  de  cien  varas  y  que  no  obstante  los 
varios  registros  y  denuncios  hechos,  las  minas  posesion  a  das  y  que 
presentan  abundantes  frutos,  aunque  de  escasa  ley  ascenderan  hasta 
veintecinco,  hallandose  las  demas  en  investigaciones,  pero  muy  super- 
ficiales  por  falta  de  capitalistas,  que  se  dediquen  al  giro,  estraye*ndose 
mensualmente  ciento  y  tantos  quintales  de  azogue,  a  pesar  de  lo  mes- 
quino  6  in  suficiente  de  los  aparatos. 

La  Junta  contesto  en  12  de  Noviembre,  que  informase  el  juzgado, 
si  habia  algunas  companias  formadas  6  por  formar  que  necesitaran  de 
auxilios,  y  en  caso  aiirmativo  manifestase  cuales  fuesen  las  minas  sobre 
que  debiora  emprenderse,  las  cantidades  a  que  pudiesen  subir  las  ac- 
ciones,  y  las  bases  sobre  que  hubiera  de  descansar  cada  negociacion,  a 
fin  de  que  la  Junta  con  estedato  resolviese  sin  embargo  hasta  la  fecha 
no  ha  recibido  contestacion  alguna,  ni  de  aquel  gobierno,  ni  del  juz- 
gado, los  que  no  ha  reclamado,  esperando  que  de  un  dia  &  otro  se 
pusiesen  en  corriente  los  fondos,  designados  por  la  ley  para  este  ramo, 
lo  que  por  desgracia  aun  no  se  verifica. 

El  Exmo,  Senor  gobernador  de  San  Luis  en  19  de  Julio  y  4  de 
Diciembre  del  auo  pasado,  18  de  Abril,  9  y  13  de  Mayo  del  presente 
remitio  a  la  Junta  los  documentos  que  acreditan  la  estraccion  del 
azogue  nacional  en  Guadalcazar,  con  el  objeto  de  que  se  satisfaciese  &> 
los  interesados  el  premio  de  cinco  pesos  por  quintal,  concedidos  por  el 
articulo  b°.  del  supremo  decreto  de  24  de  Mayo  de  1843,  a  los  que 
estrajesen  azogue  de  los  minas  de  la  Republica.  Por  dichos  docu- 
mentos se  ha  podido  tener  una  noticia  exacta  del  azoque  estraido  en 
Guadalcazar  desde  Febrero  de  844  hasta  Mayo  del  presente,  en  que 


529 

concluyo  el  teVmino  fijado  a  dicho  preinio,  cuyo   resultado  es  ol  sig- 

uiente. 
page  134.    De  la  mina  de  San  Antonio,  novecientos  cin- 

cuenta  quintales,   una  arroba,  dos  libras 950  1     2 

De  la  San  Augustin,  setenta  y  seis  quintales,  tres 

arrobas,  dos  libras,  trece  onzas 76  3     2  13 

De  Santa  Lucia,  cien  quintales 100  0     0  00 

De  Trinidad  y  San  Andres  setenta  y  ocho  quintales, 

tres  arrobas  quince  libras  una  y  media  onzas 78  3  15     1\ 

Total 1,205  3  19  U\ 


La  Junta  ha  ofrecido  &  una  de  las  companias  de  Guadalcazar,  re- 
metir  a  aquel  mineral  uno  de  los  aparatos  destilatorios  encargados  a 
Londres,  y  que  no  ha  podido  recibir  hasta  ahora  por  el  bloqueo. 

Asi  del  importe  de  los  premios  correspondientes  a  la  estraccion  del 

azoque  nacional  en  Guadalcazar,  como  del  correspondiente   a  otros 

ciento  trienta  y  seis  quintales  sacados  del  nuevo  Almaden  en  el  Du- 

razno,  se  restan  aim  algunas  cantidades  de  pesos,  que  no  han  podido 

satisfacerse,  a  virtud  de  la  suspension  de  los  pagos  dolfondo  de  azogues. 
******** 

Mexico,  November  17th,  1846. 

ISIDRO  R.  GONDRA, 
Oficial  1°.     Por  ocupacion  del  Secretario. 


Page  147. 


Junta  de  Fomento  y 
Administrativa  de  Mineria. 


Exmo.  Sr.  Al  remitir  a  V.  E.  con  esta  fecha  el  resumen  de  lo 
hecho  por  esta  junta  en  los  tiltimos  anos  en  debido  desempeno  de  su 
honroso  encargo  y  del  estado  actual  de  los  diversos  negociados  de  que 
se  ha  ocupado,  ha  tenido  el  honor  de  acompaliar  le  las  iniciativas  que 
page  us.  en  su  concept0  deben  adoptarse  para  el  verdadero  fomento  y 
proteccion  de  la  mineria  Mexicana. 

Mas  para  que  la  grandiosa  empresa  de  la  esplotacion  de  las  minas 
de  azogue  no  quede  paralizada  por  mas  tiempo  con  grave  detrimento 
de  la  riquera  ptiblica  la  Junta  se  ve*  en  la  necesidad  de  pedir  al  supre- 
mo gobierno,  no  dinero  por  ahora,  sino  lo  que  facilmente  puede  pro- 
porcionarle  aun  en  medio  de  sus  graves  urguencias  que  es  cre'dito,  el 
que  se  lograra  si  se  mandan  espedir  immediatamente  por  el  ministerio 
de  hacienda  las  6rdenes  respectivas  a  las  aduanas  maritimas  de  Vera 
Cruz  y  Tampico  para  que  desde  hoy  tenga  su  esacto  cumplimiento  lo 
dispuesto  en  alarticulo  12  del  decreto  de  25  de  Septiembre  de  1843, 
remitie'ndose  directamente  a  la  Junta  las  libranzas  correspondientes 


530 

por  los  direchos  que  le  consigno  la  ley  tan  luego  como  se  levante  el 
bloqueo. 

Tal  determinacion  estrictamente  legal  tiene  k  su  favor  el  no  gravar 
por  ahora  ni  en  un  centavo  al  erario  nacional  conprometido  en  sostener 
a  toda  costa  la  independencia  y  los  mas  caros  derechos  de  la  naeion  ; 
pero  contando  la  Junta  para  lo  succesivo  con  este  fondo,  y  obteniendo 
la  correspondiente  autorizacion  del  mismo  supremo  gobierno,  podra 
quiza  proporcionarse  recursos  con  la  menor  peYdida  posible  y  con  ellos 
continuar  fomentando  el  espiritu  de  empresa  que  de  otro  modo  desa- 
pareceria  con  la  suma  de  todos  los  bienes  que  ha  patentizado  en  dicha 
esposicion  debe  reportar  la  Republica. 

Ademas,  como  la  ley  de  2  de  Diciembre  de  '42  impuso  obligaciones 
a  la  Junta,  esta  no  puede  desempenarlas,  si  no  se  atiende  a  su  justa  so- 
licitud,  y  tendra  entre  otros  el  grave  sentimiento  de  ver  cerrar  las 
catedras  de  nueva  creacion  que  se  abrieron  en  el  colegios  nacional  de 
mineria  para  la  instruccion  de  la  juventud  dedicada  a  adquirir  los 
distintos  conocimientos  que  se  necesitan  para  poseer  con  perfeccion  la 
ciencia  mineria. 

Para  evitar  tan  grandes  males  la  Junta  tieno  el  honor  de  dirigirse 
a  V.  E.  no  dudando  que  interpondra  su  influjo  respetable,  4  fin  de 
que  pueda  disponer  en  lo  que  resta  de  este  ano  lo  conveniente  hara 
dar  principio  en  enero  a  los  estudios  establecidos  en  el  por  la  ley. 

La  Junta  disfruta  la  satisfaccion  con  este  motivo  de  reiterar  &  V. 
E.  lar  protestas  de  su  distinguida  consideracion  y  particular  aprecio. 

Dios  y  Libertad. 

Mexico,  17  de  Noviembre  de  1845. 

VICENTE  SEGITRA, 

Presidente. 

Por  ocupacion  del  secretario, 

ISIDRO  R.  GONNRA, 

Oficial    Primero. 
Exmo.  Sr.  Ministro  de  Relationes  D.  Jose  Maria  Laeragua. 


U.  S.  Surveyor  General's  Office,  ) 
San  Francisco,  Cal.      \ 

I  James  W.  Mandeville,  U.  S.  Surveyor  General  for  California, 
and  as  such  having  in  my  custody  the  papers  of  the  late  Board  of  U. 
S.  Land  Commissioners  to  ascertain  and  settle  the  private  land  claims 
of  California,  do  hereby  certify  the  foregoing  to  be  extracts  correctly 
made  from  a  document  on  file  in  case  No.  366,  on  the  docket  of  said 
Board,  indorsed,  "  No.  366,  Andres  Castillero,  Exhibit  D.  P.  L.  an- 
nexed to  dep.  of  Jose'  Maria  Lafragua.     Filed  in  office,  January  30th, 


531 

1855.  Geo.  Fisher,  Sec'y.     Recorded  in  Rec.  of  Ev.  vol.  18,  p.  620 
and  611." 

Given  under  my  hand  and  official  seal  at  the  City  of  San  Francisco, 
this  23d  day  of'Novr.  A.  D.  1857. 

Teal  \  J.  W.  MANDEVILLE, 

U.  S.  Surv.  Genl.  Cal. 


O.  H.  No.  49. 

TRANSLATION  OF  "  D.,  P.  L.," 

Exhibited  in  the  Deposition  of  Jose  Maria  Lafragua,  January 
29th,  1855. 

Of  Its  Office. 

page  119.  The  junta  de  fomento  y  administrativa  de  Mineria,  installed  the 
24th  December  1842,  in  compliance  with  the  requirements  of  the  tenth 
article  of  the  decree  of  its  organization,  remitted  to  the  proper  depart- 
ment, in  November,  1843,  the  plan  of  regulation  which  it  has  formed 
for  the  most  economical  and  faithful  administration  of  the  funds  en- 
trusted to  it ;  but  the  Government,  considering  that  it  could  not  fulfil 
its  important  duties  without  the  hands  necessary  for  their  perform- 
ance, decreed  on  the  30th  of  December,  the  disposition  of  its  em- 
ployees, and  in  July,  1844,  returned  the  plan  that  it  might  be  modified 
with  reference  to  the  subsequent  provisions.  In  January  of  the  same 
year,  it  solicited  the  approval  of  the  29th  article  of  the  proposed  regu- 
lations, according  to  which  a  separate  account  should  be  kept  for  each 
fund,  charging  to  the  endowment  the  amounts  which  were  expended 
for  wages  in  the  former  establishment,  and  to  that  of  quicksilver  the 
excess,  and  remitted  the  respective  propositions  for  the  arrangement  of 
the  places  ;  those  of  two  officials  and  as  many  clerks  of  the  Secretary's 
office,  that  of  keeper  of  archives,  that  of  accountant,  that  of  two  officials 
and  one  clerk  of  the  accountant's  office,  and  finally  that  of  treasurer, 
being  approved,  all  of  whom  entered  upon  the  performance  of  their 
duties  on  the  10th  of  February,  4th  and  7th  of  March.  On  the  8th 
of  the  same  the  Junta  arranged  its  office  provisionally,  designating  to 
each  of  the  employees  his  respective  labors. 

On  the  19th  of  March,  1845,  the  Supreme  Government  appointed 
the  Messrs.  D.  Benigno  Bustamente,  Licetiate  D.  Jose*  Maria  Lacauza, 
y  D.  Luis  Varela,  to  report  upon  the  Decrees  which  organized  the 


532 

Colegio  de  Mineria,  authorizing  the  Commission  to  inspect  the  Semi- 
nary and  the  office  of  the  Junta. 

The  report  which  they  made  to  the  Supreme  Government  was  passed 
to  the  same  office,  and  is  awaiting  investigation.  The  first  clerk  of 
the  Secretary's  office,  D.  Manuel  Garcia  Del  Valle,  having  died,  the 
Supreme  Government  approved  the  promotion  of  the  second,  thaf  of 
the  first  being  unprovided  for. 

On  the  23d  of  September  of  the  present  year,  the  Junta  granted 
leave  of  absence  to  its  Secretary  D.  Jose*  Maria  Castera,  whom  the 
Supreme  Government  had  thought  proper  to  charge  with  a  commis- 
sion, and  the  first  official  performed  his  duties  in  accordance  with  the 

cited  decree  of  the  30th  December,  1842. 

*  #  * 

*  *  * 

*  *  * 

*  *  * 

*  .*  * 

*  *  * 

*  *  * 

*  *  * 

*  *  * 

*  *  * 

*  *                     •  # 

*  *  * 

*  *  * 

*  *  * 

Quicksilver. 

page  130.  The  first  appendix  to  the  last  Memorial  of  the  Department  of 
Justice  contains  what  was  briefly  expressed  by  the  Junta  on  the  24th  of 
February,  1844,  in  regard  to  the  measures  adopted  by  the  Provis- 
ional Government  in  favor  of  this  branch,  the  results  which  they  had 
produced  up  to  that  date,  and  the  means  which,  in  its  judgment,  should 
be  taken  to  prevent  the  laudable  ends  with  which  those  measures  were 
set  on  foot  from  being  defeated. 

The  periodical,  "  Siglo  XIX,"  in  its  numbers  1361  and  1362  of 
the  21st  and  22d  August,  1845,  inserted  a  communication  from  the 
"  Diario  de  la  Marina  de  la  Habana,"  of  he  3d  of  June  preceding,  in 
which  are  indicated  the  exemptions,  which,  in  the  opinion  of  the  writer, 
should  be  adopted  in  the  tariff  of  the  Island  of  Cuba  in  order  to  effectu- 
ate the  transit,  by  its  deposite,  of  a  part  of  the  quicksilver  destined  to 
Mexico,  which  is  now  conveyed  by  the  British  steamers,  by  which,  he 
was  persuaded  considerable  advantages  in  favor  of  the  shipping  and 
commerce  of  that  nation  would  be  obtained  ;  and  that  it  could,  in  time, 


533 

by  means  of  its  influence  and  various  other   circumstances,  better  ad- 
vance its  own  interests  and  those  of  the  Republic  by  proper  treaties. 

In  the  opinion  of  the  author,  by  remitting  the  quicksilver  to  the 
said  Island,  whilst  it  is  not  required  for  the  consumption  of  our  country, 
and  retaining  the  Spanish  capital  in  that  District,  the  result  could  be 
obtained  that  the  inhabitants  would  take  part  in  the  business,  using 
their  own  resources  to  sustain  and  facilitate  it ;  the  risks  and  expendi- 
tures consequently  being  divided.  Because  as  many  as  might  not 
wish  to  incur  new  dangers  in  direct  transmissions  would  sell  their  quick- 
silver in  Havana ;  and  because  the  great  interest  which  money  pays  in 
the  Republic  would  facilitate  the  double  operation,  diminishing  the 
exhibitions  ("  exhibiciones.")  Supposing  the  quicksilver  to  be  in  the 
hands  of  the  agent  in  Havana,  he  would  doubtless  afford  the  Mexicans 
adequate  means  of  buying  it  in  Spain  with  the  guaranties  of  European 
Bankers. 

Page  i3i.  In  the  project  then  it  is  proposed  to  abolish  the  monopoly  of 
quicksilver,  opening  a  market  for  its  purchase  from  first  hands,  and  with, 
at  most,  but  a  small  increase  of  value  to  be  divided  between  the  indivi- 
duals or  corporations .  who  might  be  benefited  by  the  result  of  the 
enterprise. 

But  considering  that  the  Government  might  need  advances  on  the 
income,  perhaps  equivalent  to  those  exacted  in  the  last  contract,  it  is 
thought  proper  that  in  time  the  Republic  should  interpose  so  that  an 
arrangement  might  be  made  between  the  bank  of  Isabel  the  Second  or 
some  other  national  establishment  and  the  Government  of  Madrid, 
after  the  example  of  that  which  the  Minister  Mon  made  with  the 
Bank  of  San  Fernando. 

It  is  supposed  in  the  article,  that  the  capital  could  be  formed,  the 
Bank  itself  contributing,  and  also  some  European  Houses  by  subscrip- 
tions and  the  Mexicans  through  this  Junta  ;  and  that  it  should  be  con- 
ceded to  the  shareholders  that  the  administration  and  income  of  the 
quicksilver  should  be  left  to  the  same  Bank,  assigning  them  to  it  with 
the  proper  securities. 

The  writer  also  believes  that  Mexico  could  offer  directly  to  the 
Spanish  Government  the  loan  of  a  considerable  sum  for  a  certain  num- 
ber of  years  on  condition  that  it  should  bind  itself  to  renounce  all  other 
contracts,  extending  the  effect  to  a  fixed  price. 

Such  are,  substantially,  the  original  bases  of  one  of  the  projects 
formed  to  the  end  that  Spain  might  alienate  its  quicksilver  on  terms 
for  obtaining  immense  advantages  of  the  reciprocal  commerce,  which, 
as  yet,  is  carried  on  exclusively  by  England.  And  the  Junta  in 
presenting  this  idea  of  the  Havana  writer  to  your  Excellency,  has  no 
other  end  in  view  than  to  remind  you  of  the  most  urgent  necessity 
which  exists  of  adopting  this  or  some  other,  in  order  to  cover,  with 
smaller  losses,  the   great  deficiency  which   the  Mexican  quicksilver 


534 

leaves  in  the  consumption  of  the  mines,  especially  when  the  contract 
made  with  the  house  of  Roschild  terminates  next  year,  and  the  Sov- 
ereign Congress  could  empower  the  Junta  as  it  did  on  the  17th  of 
February  1843  by  its  decree  of  that  day. 

In  the  periodical  of  Tampico,  Tamaulipas,  la  Esperanza,  number  11 
of  the  12th  of  March  of  the  year  preceding,  the  editors  copied  a  letter 
from  San  Luis  Potosi,  which  announced  a  discovery  in  quicksilver  at 
Guadalcazar,  which  indicates  the  extraction  of  more  than  three  quin- 
tels  daily.  The  Junta  on  the  26th  of  the  same  month  addressed  the 
proper  Government,  requesting  detailed  information  of  the  discovery, 
with  a  view  to  encouraging  its  working  and  development. 

On  the  2d  of  April  it  answered,  that  it  had  sought  the  correspond- 
ing information,  and  that  so  soon  as  it  could  obtain  it,  it  would  remit  it 
to  the  Junta,  confirming  the  intelligence,  notwithstanding  the  distilling 
apparatus  was  of  clay,  and  said  at  that  time  various  parcels  up  to 
twenty  flasks  had  been  introduced,  and  that  some  monthly  remittances 
to  Guanajusto  had  been  contracted  for. 

As  by  the  improvement  of  the  apparatus  an  increase  ought  to  be 
obtained  at  Guadalcazar,  in  order  to  profit  by  all  the  ley  of  the  metal, 
which  is  lost  now,  to  ensure  the  permanence  of  the  production,  and  to 
obtain  the  inauguration  of  economy  in  every  class  of  expenses,  the 
Government  of  the  Department  wished  that  as  soon  as  practicable  a 
scientific  inspection  might  be  made,  and  the  Junta,  on  the  16th  of 
April,  although  convinced  of  the  advantages  which  would  result  from 
sending  an  intelligent  person  who  would  contribute  to  the  better  di- 
rection of  the  labor  and  works  of  Guadalcazar,  and  especially  to  the 
most  economical  and  abundant  distillation  of  the  quicksilver,  answered 
that  it  was  then  unable  to  do  it  for  the  want  of  funds. 

The  above  mentioned  periodical  in  its  number  of  April  2nd,  spoke 
again  of  the  progress  they  were  making  in  Guadalcazar,  asserting 
that  in  four  days  they  extracted  four  quintals,  there  having  been  an 
arroba  of  metal  which  might  yield  seventeen  ounces,  notwithstanding 
the  great  evaporation  which  necessarily  resulted  from  the  small  intel- 
ligence with  which  the  metal  was  reduced  ;  that  there  were  four  mines 
being  worked  and  seventy  denounced  ;  and  the  spirit  of  enterpise 
which  was  excited,  had  produced  traders  in  the  ore,  (rescatodores  de 
metal  en  piedra.) 

Reserving  the  remittance  of  more  precise  intelligence,  the  Depart- 
mental Government  on  the  10th  of  May  transmitted  a  copy  of  the 
report  issued  from  the  office  of  the  Prefect  of  San  Luis  on  the  80th 
of  the  same  month.  From  that  it  appears  that,  according  to  investi- 
gations made  in  the  mine  of  San  Antonio,  besides  the  leads,  veins  and 
outcroppings,  almost  on  the  surface,  which  are  worked,  there  had  been 
struck  already  a  second  vein  at  the  depth  of  thirty  feet,  whose  metals 
of  superior  "ley"  (since  they  yielded  from  four  to  five  pounds  to  the 


535 

"  carga")  could  increase  its  products  considerably  by  perfecting  the 
smelting  apparatus,  which  consist  now  almost  entirely  of  large  narrow 
mouthed  pitchers  with  tubes  of  clay  and  conductors  of  metal ;  that 
the  opinion  that  the  land  to  be  prospected  occupied  an  area  of  five 
square  leagues,  a  little  more  or  less,  was  confirmed  ;  that  its  situation 
was  to  the  north  of  Guadalcazar,  and  surrounded  by  an  abundance  of 
timber ;  that  according  to  the  exhibition  made  by  the  proper  Mineral 
Court,  up  to  the  26th  of  April  there  had  been  discovered  in  its  juris- 
diction eighty  two  mines  ;  that  no  works  had  been  undertaken  except 
those  very  necessary  to  burn  in  mud  (para  quemar  en  lodo),  which  is 
the  method  most  commonly  used  ;  that  of  all  the  mines  only  four  were 
profitable  ;  that  from  that  of  San  Antonio,  the  most  productive,  they 
got  out  fifty  "  cargas"  a  day,  with  a  ley  of  2,  3,  and  four  pounds,  the 
products  of  the  others  not  being  exactly  known  ;  that  with  the  bad 
method  of  smelting  which  they  have,  they  did  not  avail  themselves  of 
all  the  "  ley"  which  they  have  ;  that  there  was  in  the  neighborhood  a 
supply  of  wood  and  water,  and  that  the  other  mines  registered  were 
worked  on  an  uncertainty,  the  greater  part  showing  signs  of  the  kind 
of  earth  (panino)  m  which  the  cinnabar  is  produced. 

The  Minister  of  Justice  on  the  7th  of  June,  transcribed  to  the 
Junta  an  official  letter  from  the  Government  of  San  Luis  of  the  31st 
of  May,  and  with  it  ;:.  copy  of  another  from  the  Departmental  Assem- 
bly, which  contains  the  followtng  proposition  : 

It  will  be  proposed  through  the  Government  of  the  Department, 
and  with  the  knowledge  of  the  Supreme  Government  of  the  Republic, 
to  the  Junta  de  fomento  de  Mineria  de  Mexico,  that  it  should  estab- 
lish a  fund  for  the  buying  up  of  quicksilver  in  the  mine  of  Guadal- 
cazar, for  the  present,  of  twenty  thousand  dollars,  and  that  at  the  ex- 
pense of  its  funds  it  should  construct  the  apparatus  of  the  furnace 
most  necessary  and  useful,  in  which  at  its  expense,  the  quicksilver 
metals  of  those  mines  may  be  reduced,  only  a  small  increase  being 
calculated  for  the  indemnification  of  the  costs  of  its  construction.  The 
Junta  answered  to  the  Supreme  Government  on  the  18th  of  the  same 
month-,  acknowledging  the  propriety  of  the  examination  and  that  of 
constructing  the  apparatus,  at  the  same  time  complaining  of  the  want 
of  funds,  and  representing  the  necessity  that  existed  of  expediting 
the  arrearages  of  the  funds  destined  by  law  for  the  encouragement  of 
the  quicksilver  business. 

The  Director  General  of  Industry,  on  the  14th  of  said  month,  pre- 
sented a  report  of  the  industrial  Junta  of  San  Luis,  in  which  with  the 
date  of  the  7th  of  the  same  month,  and  to  urge  this  Junta  de  fomento 
to  the  efficacious  protection  of  Guadalcazar,  so  as  to  avoid  its  going  to 
decay,  which,  without  such  indispensable  assistance,  would  be  at  no 
remote  period,  whilst  with  a  brilliant  result  could  be  secur:d,  he 
solicited  the  scientific  inspection,  perfect  smelting  apparatus,  and  the 


536 

establishment  of  a  purchasing  office  (rescate);  but  the  Junta  had  the 
pain  of  manifesting  to  him  its  want  of  funds,  adding,  that  having 
asked  them  on  the  19th  of  the  same  month  from  the  Supreme  Govern- 
ment, the  Superior  of  San  Luis,  should  designate  the  person  or  per- 
sons, who  in  that  mine  should  be  charged  with  the  custody  of  the 
money  which  might  serve  for  the  purchasing  fund,  (rescate),  as  also 
with  the  purchase  and  sale  of  the  quicksilver,  the  Commissioner  giving 
sufficient  security  for  his  administration. 

The  Government  on  the  9th  of  July  gave  notice,  in  answer,  that  the 
few  capable  persons  who  were  in  the  said  mine,  were  supposed  to  be  occu- 
pied with  their  own  private  business,  believing,  for  that  reason,  that  it 
was  more  proper  to  choose  some  one  in  San  Luis,  who,  either  by  him- 
s  M  or  through  an  agent  under  his  responsibility,  might  discharge  the 
trust. 

The  Junta  on  the  20th  of  August  of  the  previous  year,  represented 
to  the  Government  of  San  Luis,  that  notwithstanding  the  poverty  of 
the  fund.,  it  would  place  there  soon  four  thousand  dollars  for  the  es- 
tablishing of  a  purchasing  office  of  the  fluid  quicksilver  in  the  said 
mining  place*,  without  other  restriction  than  that  of  preserving  without 
diminution  the  sum  indicated,  to  which  end  it  could  form  and  remit  the 
corresponding  regulation,  comprehending  in  it  an  adequate  method  of 
favoring  the  workers  of  the  quicksilver  and  the  miners  who  shall  buy 
it,  covering  all  the  expenses  of  administration  and  indemnifying  the 
person  who  shall  be  charged  with  it,  under  the  proper  guaranties,  and 
designate  the  individual  to  perform  the  trust,  whether  he  might  be  of 
San  Luis  or  of  Guadalcazar.  The  said  Government  announced  on  the 
27th  of  August,  that  it  was  already  engaged  in  the  establishment  of 
the  agency. 

Subsequently,  the  Court  of  Guadalcazar,  on  the  80th  of  October  of 
lest  year,  reported  that  the  mines  of  cinnabar  registered  amounted  to 
a  hundred  and  twenty-five,  those  denounced  to  thirty-three,  and  that 
the  extraordinary  productiveness  afforded  space  for  the  location  of 
many  more  than  those  theretofore  established,  since  following  the-  an- 
cient openings,  which  it  appears  were  worked  from  time  immemorial  by 
the  aborigines,  although  there- is  no  notice  of  it  in  the  archives  of  the 
tribunal,  the  excavations  are  spread  over  about  six  leagues  in  circum- 
ference from  the  silver  mine,  having  one  league  for  the  least  breadth, 
for  which  reason  it  is  judged  that  a  great  deposit  ought  to  be  found 
there,  and  the  more,  when  it  is  seen  that  some  of  the  mines  anciently 
worked  showed,  by  the  heaps  of  earth,  a  depth  of  as  much  as  a  hun- 
dred varas  and  notwithstanding  the  various  examinations  and  denounce- 
ments made,  the  mines  held  in  possession  and  which  yield  abundant 
profits,  although  of  scanty  "  ley"'  will  go  as  high  as  twenty-five,  the 
others  being  still  prospected  but  very  superficially,  for  the  want  of 
capitalists  to  apply  themselves  to  the  business  ;  there  being  extracted 


537 

monthly  a  hundred  quintals  and  upwards  of  quicksilver,  notwithstand- 
ing the  meanness  and  insufficiency  of  the  apparatus. 

The  Junta  answered  on  the  12th  of  November,  that  the  Court  should 
be  informed  if  there  were  any  companies  formed  or  to  be  formed 
which  would  need  assistance,  and  in  case  there  were,  it  should  make 
known  which  were  the  mines  that  ought  to  be  undertaken,  what  the 
amount  of  the  shares  should  be,  and  the  basis  on  which  each  negotia- 
tion would  have  to  rest,  to  the  end  that  the  Junta  with  these  data 
might  decide.  However  up  to  this  time  it  has  received  no  answer — 
neither  from  the  Government  nor  from  the  Couit,  nor,  indeed,  has  it 
demanded  any,  hoping  from  day  to  day  that  it  might  be  in  receipt  of 
the  funds  appropriated  by  law  for  this  department,  which  hope,  unfor- 
tunately, has  not  been  realized. 

His  Excellency  the  Governor  of  San  Luis,  on  the  19th  of  July  and 
4th  of  December  of  last  year,  the  18th  of  April,  9th  and  18th  of 
May  of  the  present,  remitted  to  the  Junta  the  Documents  which  prove 
the  extraction  of  the  national  quicksilver  in  Guadalcazar,  so  that  the 
parties  interested  might  receive  the  premium  of  five  dollars  per  quin- 
tal, granted  by  the  5th  article  of  the  Supreme  Decree  of  the  24th  of 
May,  1843,  to  those  who  might  extract  quicksilver  from  the  mines  of 
the  Republic.  From  those  documents  an  exact  statement  can  be  had 
of  the  quicksilver  extracted  in  Guadalcazar  from  February  1844  up 
to  May  of  the  present  year,  at  which  time  the  term  fixed  for  the  said 
premium  expired. 

De  la  mina  de  San  Antonio  novecientos  cin- 
quenta  quintales,  one  arroba  and  two  pounds    950  1     2 
De  la  San  Augustin  seventy-six  quintals,  three  arro- 

bas,  two  pounds,  thirteen  ounces 76  3     2  13 

De  Santa  Lucia,  one  hundred  quintals 100  0     0  00 

De  Trinidad  y  Andres,  seventy-eight  quintals,  three 

arrobas,  fifteen  pounds,  one  and  one  half  ounces.       78  3  15     1\ 


1,205  3  19  14} 


The  Junta  has  offered  to  one  of  the  Companies  of  Guadalcazar,  to 
send  to  that  mine  one  of  the  distilling  machines  ordered  in  London, 
and  which  it  has  not  been  able  to  receive  yet  on  account  of  the  block- 
ade. 

Thus  from  the  amount  of  the  premiums  corresponding  to  the  ex- 
traction of  the  national  quicksilver  at  Guadalcazar,  as  also  from  the 
amount  corresponding  to  a  hundred  and  thirty-six  quintals  more  ex- 
tracted from  the  New  Almaden  of  Durazno,  there  remain  some  sums 

42 


538 

of  money  that  could  not  be  paid,  by  reason  of  the  suspension  of  the 
Quickrilver  fund. 


Mexico,  Nov.  17th,  1846,  ISIDRO  R.  GONDRA, 

1st  Official  on  account  of  the  occupation  of  the  Secretary. 

Junta  de  fomento  y  Administrate va  de  Mineria. 
Most  Excellent  Sir  : — In  remitting  to  your  excellency, 
with  this  date  the  summary  of  the  proceedings  of  this  Junta,  in 
the  years  last  past,  in  the  due  performance  of  its  honorable  trust,  and 
the  actual  condition  of  the  diverse  transactions  with  which  it  has  been 
occupied,  it  has  had  the  honor  of  reporting  to  you  the  initia- 
tive steps  which,  in  its  opinion,  ought  to  be  adopted  for  the  true 
encouragement  and  protection  of  Mexican  Mining. 

But  in  order  that  the  grand  enterprise  of  the  development  of  the 
quicksilver  mines  may  not  be  paralized  longer,  to  the  great  detriment 
of  the  public  wealth,  the  Junta  finds  itself  under  the  necessity  of  ask- 
ing from  the  Government,  not  money,  for  the  present,  but  what  it  can 
easily  furnish,  even  in  the  midst  of  its  great  necessities,  that  is  credit, 
which  will  be  obtained,  if  the  the  Minister  of  Hacienda  will  cause  the 
proper  orders  to  be  issued  to  the  Maritime  Custom  houses  of  Vera 
Cruz  and  Tampico  to  the  effect  that  hereafter  it  may  have  its  exact 
complement  appropriated  in  article  12  of  the  Decree  of  the  25th  of 
September,  1813  ;  the  corresponding  drafts  for  the  duties  which  the 
law  assigned  to  it,  being  remitted  directly  to  the  Junta  as  soon  as  the 
blockade  may  be  raised. 

Such  an  arrangement,  strictly  legal,  has  in  its  favor,  that  it  will  not 
burthen,  for  the  present,  te  the  amount  of  a  cent,  the  National  treas- 
ury, now  charged  with  maintaining,  at  all  costs,  the  independence  and 
the  dearest  rights  of  the  nation ;  but  the  Junta  counting  on  this  fund 
for  the  future,  and  obtaining  the  proper  authorization  from  the  Supreme 
Government  itself,  could,  perhaps,  provide  resources  with  the  least 
possible  los3,  and  with  them  continue  to  encourage  the  spirit  of  enter- 
prise, which  otherwise  would  disappear  with  the  sum  of  all  the  goods 
it  has  patented  in  the  said  exposition,  which  the  Republic  ought  to  avoid. 

Besides  as  the  law  of  the  2d  September,  '42,  imposed  obligations  on 
this  Junta,  it  cannot  discharge  them  if  its  just  solicitude  is  disregard- 
ei,  and  it  would  have,  among  others,  the  great  pain  of  seeing  closed 
the  newly  created  professorships  which  were  opened  in  the  National 
College  of  Mining  for  the  instruction  of  youth  dedicated  to  the  ac- 
quirement of  the  various  knowledge  which  is  necessary  in  order  to  be 
perfect  in  the  science  of  mining. 

To  avoid  such  great  evils  the  Junta  has  the  honor  of  addressing  it 


539 

self  to  your  Excellency,  not  doubting  that  you  will  interpose  your  res- 
pectable influence,  so  that  during  the  remainder  of  this  year,  it  may 
be  able  to  dispose  of  what  may  be  required  in  order  to  make  a  begin- 
ing  in  January  of  the  studies  established  by  law. 

The  Junta  enjoys  the  satisfaction  of  repeating  to  your  Excellency 
the  assurances  of  its  distinguished  consideration  and  particular  respect. 
God  and  Liberty,  Mexico,  17th  of  November,  1845. 

VICENTE  SEGURA, 

President. 

On  account  of  the  engagement  of  the  Secretary, 

ISIDRO  R.  GONDRA, 

First  Official. 

Most  Excellent  sir,  Minister  of  Relations,  D.  Jose  Maria  Lafragua. 


0.  H.  No.  50. 
(Vide   page   219.) 

0.  H.  No.  51). 
(Vide   page   199.) 


0.  H.  X.  No.  1. 

Private, 

St.  Francisco,  30th  Jan.  1846. 
Eustace  Barron,  Esq. 

My  Dear  Sir  :  The  accompanying  correspondence  will  be  left  at 
Mazatlan  by  the  British  ship  Emma  Captain  Elbourn,  whose  destina- 
tion is  the  South  Pacific  Ocean,  and  lastly  at  Valparaiso.  In  consid- 
eration of  the  payment  of  one  hundred  dollars,  he  has  agreed  to  touch 
at  the  first  mentioned  port,  solely  for  the  purpose  of  delivering  my 
package. 

I  trust  that  you  will  not  disapprove  of  my  having  taken  this  method 
of  communicating  to  what  I  consider  important  information.  I  have 
given  the  Captain  a  bill  for  the  amount,  which  I  presume  he  will  nego. 
tiate  at  Mazatlan. 

News  have  reached  this  coast,  of  the  final  adjustment  of  the  Oregon 
question,  but  it  is  not  stated  in  what  manner. 

^  I  presume  that  the  Texas  affair  has  not  been  settled ;  as  the  expe- 
dition for  California  has  not  arrived. 


540 

D.  Andres  Castillero,  a  sort  of  Commissioner  from  the  Mexican 
Government  to  this  Department,  is  now  working  a  quicksilver  mine 
near  the  Mission  of  Sta.  Clara,  which  mine  has  yielded  40  per  cent, 
upon  the  assay  of  mineral  employed. 

I  have  had  a  deal  of  trouble  with  the  authorities  here,  relative  to 
the  deposit  of  the  roll  of  the  British  ship  Emma.  The  Captain  of  the 
Port  claims  it,  and  the  British  laws  command  the  master  to  deposit  it 
in  my  hand  under  the  penalty  of  £25. 

I  have  retained  the  roll  in  my  possession,  in  spite  of  a  villainous 
Captain  of  the  Port,  and  henceforward  shall  cause  the  Captain  of  any 
British  vessel  to  furnish  a  list  of  his  crew  copied  from  the  roll. 

I  shall  not  fail  to  address  you  by  every  opportunity. 
I  am,  my  dear  sir, 

Your  most  obedient  servant, 

JAS.  ALEX.  FORBES. 

P.  S. — Be  pleased  to  number  my  public  letter  No.  81,  in  lieu  of 
No.  8. 

(Endorsed)  1846.  J.  A.  Forbes,  S.  Fro.  30  Jan.  Reed.  17 
March.     Private. 


0.  H.  X.  No.  2. 

Private. 

San  Francisco,  22  Sept.,  1846. 

My  Dear  Sir  :  The  Herald  has  come  suddenly  into  this  port, 
where  according  to  my  last  words  from  the  Admiral  I  least  expected 
her. 

I  send  you  some  notice  of  the  affairs  of  this  country,  but  everything 
is  in  such  an  uproar  that  nothing  can  be  trusted  to  the  hands  of  any 
person. 

Do  not  think  that  I  shall  fail  to  write  you  whenever  a  safe  opportu- 
nity presents. 

I  am  now  in  charge  of  the  Quicksilver  mine,  and  am  going  to  work 
it  until  I  can  hear  from  Castillero,  and  am  upon  the  point  of  striking  a 
bargain  for  four  shares. 

The  mine  of  which  I  wrote  you  by  the  Juno,  does  not  produce  40 
per  cent.,  according  to  the  ore  shown  us. 

The  Herald  leaves  immediately,  but  I  shall  write  you  more  at  length 


541 

by  the  Figaro.     I  think  I  am  right,  thut  the  mine  now  under  my 
charge  gives  20  per  cent. 

Excuse  haste,  my  dear  sir,  and  believe  me, 

Yours  most  sincerely, 

J.  ALEX.  FORBES. 

The  vessel  is  now  under  sail  while  I  write. 

(Endorsed) :  1846.     J.  A.  Forbes,  S.  Franc'o  22  Sept'r. 


0.  H.  X.  No.  3. 

Private. 

Santa  Clara,  14th  July,  1847. 
Alexander  Forbes,  Esq. : 

My  Dear  Sir  :  I  have  the  pleasure  to  communicate  to  you,  that  up 
to  the  present  time  nothing  has  occurred  to  affect  the  quiet  occupation 
of  the  mine  of  Almaden.  Since  the  departure  of  Mr.  Walkingshaw, 
Mr.  Alden  has  done  little  in  the  mine  in  consequence  of  the  scarcity 
of  operatives.  The  indians  have  almost  all  left  him  ;  and  such  is  the 
indolence  of  this  class  of  people,  that  I  am  quite  certain  you  will  never 
be  able  to  do  anything  with  such  labourers.  I  should  advise  you  to  try 
and  procure  some  of  the  natives  of  the  Sandwich  Islands,  through  the 
influence  of  Mr.  Wyllie.  These  people  should  be  from  the  interior, 
and  not  from  the  maritime  part  of  the  population.  They  should  be 
engaged  under  contract  for  three  or  five  years,  as  they  are  employed 
by  the  Hudson  Bay  Company. 

I  was  presented  yesterday  with  a  splendid  specimen  of  quicksilver 
ore,  from  a  spot  within  or  near  the  limits  of  the  two  leagues  conceded 
to  Castillero  and  Socios,  but  situated  upon  the  land  claimed  by  the 
American,  Cook,  of  whom  you  doubtless  have  been  informed.  The 
person  who  brought  the  specimen  to  me,  was  sent  by  one  of  the  dis- 
coverers and  informed  me  that  in  May,  1846,  this  new  vein  was  dis- 
covered and  denounced  before  the  authorities  of  San  Jose* ;  but  that  in 
consequence  of  the  war  they  did  not  receive  possession.  One  of  the 
parties  shewed  the  vein  to  a  person  sent  by  M.  Moerenhout  and  Sr. 
Alvarado  to  treat  with  them  for  the  sale  or  contract  for  working  the 
vein.  I  immediately  had  an  interview  with  the  discoverers,  and  in- 
formed them  that  if  any  such  vein  did  in  reality  exist  without  the  limits 
of  the  two  leagues,  and  documents  could  be  manifested  of  the  denun- 
ciation, I  was  ready  to  enter  into  a  contract  in  the  name  of  the  Com- 
pany of  Almaden,  for  working  the  vein,  but  that  I  could  not  permit 


542 

any  claim  or  operation  to  be  entered  upon  until  the  land  should  be 
measured  ;  that  it  would  be  detrimental  to  their  interest  to  attempt  to 
make  any  contract  with  any  other  than  yourself.  M.  Moernhout  re- 
ceived a  refusal  from  these  people  to  make  any  arrangement ;  and 
this  morning  called  at  my  house  on  his  journey  to  St.  Francisco,  whither 
he  has  gone  for  I  know  not  what  purpose.  I  shall  take  the  necessary 
measures  to  frustrate  any  contract  that  be  made  with  these  persons,  as 
also  with  another  party  who  denounced  another  vein,  and  who  are  at 
some  expense  digging  for  metal.  This  last  is  without  the  limits  of  the 
mine  of  Almaden,  but  I  think  that  it  will  not  prove  of  any  value.  I 
have,  notwithstanding,  agreed  that  you  will  work  it ;  that  is  to  say, 
that  you  will  give  the  habilitacion  upon  better  terms  than  any  other 
person. 

There  is  another  vein  near  the  mine,  of  which  I  have  informed  Mr. 
Alden.     This  will  not  of  course  be  molested. 

I  have  seen  a  letter  from  Mr.  McNamara  to  Padre  Real,  in  which 
he  complains  bitterly  that  he  has  not  received  enough  for  his  services 
in  negotiating  the  mining  contract  with  you  ;  that  he  ought  to  have 
had  one  barra  from  each  of  the  socios  ;  that  I  wrote  inaccurate  state- 
ments to  you ;  and  sums  up  with  a  furious  tirade,  telling  the  Padre 
that  he  (McNamara)  is  a  man  of  great  influence  with  Her  Majesty's 
Minister  at  Mexico,  of  whom  he  is  the  most  intimate  friend ;  that  I 
had  better  be  cautious,  or  I  will  lose  my  official  situation  !  and  other 
absurdities  which  manifest  his  principles,  and  how  little  he  is  aware  of 
my  independence  of  spirit  to  be  affected  by  such  threats.  This  letter 
was  evidently  written  in  the  supposition  that  I  should  learn  its  con- 
tents ;  I  am  sorry  that  I  cannot  send  you  a  copy  of  it  at  the  present 
time,  as  the  Padre  is  absent.  I  am  ignorant  how  my  letter  to  you 
could  have  given  such  umbrage  to  the  Rev.  gentleman,  and  I  beg  that 
you  will  have  the  kindness  to  send  me  a  copy  of  that  same  letter,  and 
also  to  inform  me  whether  Mr.  McNamara  is  yet  in  Mexico. 
I  am,  my  dear  sir, 

Yours  sincerely  and  respectfully, 

JAS.  ALEX.  FORBES. 


0.  H.  X.  No.  4. 

Santa  Clara,  7  Febr'y  de  1848. 
Alexander  Forbes,  Esquire  : 

My  Dear  Sir  :  By  the  Mason  I  send  you  some  specimens  of  the 
new  vein,  which  was  duly  registered  on  Saturday,  and  poso  opened  ; 
I  have  not  had  time  to  make  an  assay.  Your  opinion  respecting  the 
abundance  of  ores  of  cinnabar  in  the  vicinity  of  New  Almaden  is  very 


543 

correct.  I  have  this  morning  caused  another  denuncio  to  be  made  of 
another  veta  !  and  on  my  return  from  it  I  have  yet  another  to  make. 
The  samples  of  these  last  two  vetas  are,  however,  rather  inferior  to  the 
beautiful  specimens  I  now  send  to  you. 

I  have  spoken  to  Mr.  Lyman  upon  the  subject  of  this  survey ;  and 
he  very  willingly  agreed  to  go  and  see  you  to-morrow.  I  shall  go  the 
hacienda  to-morrow  (Thursday,)  in  order  to  assist  if  you  resolve  upon 
the  measurement  before  you  proceed  to  Monterey.  My  opinion  of  the 
title  of  the  widow  of  Berreyesa,  or  rather  my  first  view  of  that  title, 
and  the  information  given  by  her  sons,  was  that  the  grant  was  for  two 
leagues,  but  I  have  been  at  her  house  on  my  return  hither,  and  I  find 
that  the  title  was  given  for  one  league,  or  sitio,  and  that  the  word  one 
has  been  converted  into  the  word  two.  I  advise  you  of  this  in  order 
to  prevent  an  incorrect  supposition  of  her  boundary  line.  She  correct- 
ness of  her  title  can  only  be  ascertained  by  examining  the  archives  at 
Monterey.  Mr.  Lyman  tells  me  that  he  did  not  survey  Cook's  land, 
although  he,  Cook,  had  made  pome  proposition  to  him  to  do  it.  Per- 
haps it  would  be  safe  to  take  the  limit  of  Cook  and  the  prolongation  of 
that  line  as  one  of  "the  limits  of  the  two  sitios,  without  meddling  with 
the  widow's  land  or  boundary  ;  but  you  know  that  she  expects  to  have 
some  line  defined  between  her  land  and  those  two  sitios  of  the  hacienda, 
and  will  therefore  determine  as  to  that  operation. 

The  priest  is  not  yet  arrived,  nor  is  there  anything  new  to  commu- 
nicate to  you. 

I  have  not  had  time  to  make  out  the  power  of  attorney,  but  I  shall 
be  able  to  do  it  before  you  leave. 

The  Mason  leaves  this  at  nine,  A.  M. 

I  am,  my  dear  sir, 

Your  obt.  servant, 

JAS.  ALEX.  FORBES. 

(Endorsed)     1848.     Mr.  Forbes. 


0.  H.  X.  No.  5. 

Tepic,  6th  February,  1850. 
James  A.  Forbes,  Esq.,  New  Almaden: 

Dear  Sir  : — In  reply  to  your  private  letter  of  the  20th  December, 
respecting  the  two  sitios  of  land,  we  have  to  say  that  we  had  hoped 
that  the  document  lately  sent,  for  this  grant  to  Mr.  Castillero  would 
have  been  sufficient,  but  as  you  seem  to  be  doubtful  on  this  point,  we 
have  spoken  to  him,  he  being  now  here,  and  his  opinion  is  that  if  this 
grant  is  not  tenable  it  will  be  better  to  go  upon  the  three  thousand 


544 

varas  of  the  Alcalde,  granted  at  the  time  of  giving  possession  of  the 
mine,  and  approved  of  by  the  Mexican  Government,  which  approval 
will  be  taken  from  the  Mexican  archives  and  sent  on  to  you.  Although 
by  the  Ordenanzas  of  Mineria  the  Alcalde  or  Judge  may  not  have  had 
strictly  a  right  to  grant  these  3000  varas,  yet  being  approved  by  the 
Mexican  Government,  would  make  this  valid  as  a  grant.  We  hope 
however  you  will  find  the  Berreyesas'  lands  not  to  include  the  hacienda, 
and  consequently  either  the  grant  of  the  two  sitios  or  the  3000  varas 
would  be  a  sufficient  title.  Mr.  Alexander  Forbes  will  however  write 
you  more  particularly  on  this  subject. 

We  are  much  surprised  at  the  proceedings  of  Dr.  Tobin,  whom  you 
say  has  the  intention  of  coming  by  the  steamer  of  the  first  of  Febru- 
ary. We  shall  not  be  sorry  that  he  comes ;  he  will  gain  nothing  by 
that  step,  and  you  may  depend  upon  your  being  supported  whatever 
he  may  mean  to  say  or  do  to  ycur  prejudice.  The  good  fortune  will 
be  that  the  principal  part  of  all  the  Habilitadores  and  proprietors  of 
the  mine  will  be  here  to  meet  him.  As  however  we  hardly  think  he 
will  venture  to  come  wTe  shall  say  nothing  of  the  reception  he  will  meet 
with. 

We  are,  dear  sir, 

Your  most  obt.  serv'ts, 

BARRON,  FORBES  &  CO. 

(Addressed) — James  Alex.  Forbes,  Esq. 

(Endorsed)  Barron,  Forbes  &  Co.,  relative  to  the  departure  of 
Dr.  Tobin  from  N.  Almaden,  6th  Feb'y,  1850.  Answered  26th  Feb'y. 


0.  IL  X.  No.  6. 

Santa  Clara,  18  de  Junio,  1850. 
Sr.  Dn.  Ysidoro  de  la  Torre  : 

Muy  Sexor  mio  y  de  mi  aprecio  : — Acompano  h  V.  los  sig'tes  do- 
cuments que  pertenecen  k  esa  negociacion,  y  son  los  que  tienen  rcla- 
cion  con  mi  administracion  de  ella  4  saber : 
Un  pliego  papel  sellado  mejicano,  del  sello  5°.  con  copia  autorizada  de 

la  commnnicac'n  del  ministerio  de  relaciones  esteriores  relativa  & 

dos  sitios  de  ganado  mayor  en  N.  Almaden. 
Seis  pliegos  en  papel  comun,  con  copias  autorizadas  del  contrato  de 

abio  de  la  mina  de  N.  Almaden,  incluyendo  copia  del  documento 

k  que  se  contrae  el  arriba  mencionado  pliego,  &c.  certificado  por 

el  Consulado  Britanica  de  Tepic. 


545 

Siete  pliegos — siete  pliegos  de  papel  sellado  mejicano  dell  sello  cuarto, 
con  copias  autorizadas  del  contrato  original  de  la  Compania  de  la 
Mina  de  N.  Almaden,  fha  2  de  Noveb're,  1845  ;  del  poder  de 
D.  Jose*  Castro  k  Macnamara,  para  efectuar  el  contrato  de  abio  ; 
ratification  del  mismo  por  D.  Andres  Castillero  ;  y  cesion  de  los 
dos  sitios,  ratificacion  de  Castro,  &c.  certificado  por  el  Consulado 
Americano  en  Tepic. 

Veinte  y  oclio  cartas  y  una  nota  de  q.  de  la  direccion  gral  en  Tepic  a 
D.  A.  Forbes. 

Documentos  relativos  al  pleito  de  Walkinshaw  contra  la  mina  de  Nue- 
vo  Almaden,  incluyendo  cartas  del  dho  recibos,  &c. 

Recibos,  ordenes  y  cartas,  &c,  incluyendo  recibo  del  pago  de  la  lan- 
cha  Emilia  ;  del  pago  de  $3,500  ps.  a  Antonio  Gamez,  copias  del 
contrato  del  Dr.  Tobin,  &c,  &c,  y  de  la  gente  oprerario  por  el 
Vicar  of  Bray. 

Soy  deb.  S.  S.     Q.  B.  S.  M., 

DIEGO  ALEX.  FORBES. 

P.  D.  Por  separado  incluyo  a  V.  el  pagare"  de  Juan  Armstrong  y 
la  libranza  contra  Jesus  Herrera  en  que  lite  ha  anotado  el  pago  de  los 
doscientos  pesos. 


0.  H.  X.  No.  7. 


Anos  de  mil 


J        ochocientos  cuarenta 


'      \      ocho  y  mil  ochocientos 
^         cuarenta  y  nueva. 

mlnisterio  de  r.elaciones  esteriores 
gobernacion  y  policia. 
Exmo.  Se^or  : 

El  E.  6  Y.  S.  Ministro  de  Justicia,  en  oflcio  de  20  del  corriente,  me 
dice  lo  que  copio  :  • 

"  E.  S. :  Hoy  digo  al  E.  S.  D.  Vicente  Segura,  Precidente  de  la 
Junta  de  Fomento  de  Mineria,  lo  siguiente  : 

'  E.  S.  Habiendo  dado  cuenta  al  E.  S.  Precidente  interino  con  la 
notade  V.  E.  de  14  del  presente  a  que  se  servio*  acompafiarme,  con 
recomendacion,  la  solicitud  del  Senor  Don  Andres  Castillero  para  el 
fomento  de  la  mina  Azogue  que  ha  descubierto  en  la  Mision  de  Santa 
Clara  en  la  Alta  California ;  se  ha  servido  S.  E.  aprobar  en  todos  sus 
partes  el  convenio  celebrado  con  dicho  individuo  para  principiar  la  es- 
plotacion  de  dicho  mineral,  y  con  esta  fecha  se  hace  la  communicacion 


546 

que  correspond^  al  Ministerio  de  Relaciones  Esteriores  y  Gobernacion, 
para  que  libre  las  ordenes  oportunas  por  lo  respectivo  a  lo  que  con- 
tiene  la  8a  proposicion,  relativa  &  la  concesion  de  terrenos  en  aquel 
Departmento.' 

Y  tengo  el  honor  de  insertario  4  V.  E.  4  fin  de  que  por  lo  respectivo 
a  la  solicitud  del  S.  Castillero,  &  que  ha  tenido  a  bien  acceder  el  E. 
S.  Precidente  interino  sobre  que  como  colono  se  le  conceda  dos  citios 
de  ganado  major  sobre  el  terreno  de  su  posecion  mineria,  se  sirva  V. 
E.  librar  las  ordenes  de  que  se  trata. 

Reitero  a  N.  E.  &a." 

Y  lo  transcribo  a  V.  E.  para  que  con  arreglo  a  lo  que  prevengan 
las  leyes  y  disposiciones  sobre  colonizacion,  ponga  al  S.  Castillero  en 
posecion  de  los  sitios  que  se  mencionan. 

Dios  y  Libertad. 

Mdxico,  Mayo  23  de  1846. 

CASTILLO  LAZNAS. 
E.  S.  Gobernador  del  Departamento  de  Californias. 

Es  copia  fielmente  sacada  de  su  original  que  se  presents  en  este  ofi- 
cio  por  las  Senores  Barron,  Forbes  y  Compailia  de  este  Comercio,  y 
devolviendoseles  por  mi  rubricada,  se  les  da  el  presente  a  su  peticiou 
para  el  uso  que  les  convengo ;  y  en  fe*  de  todo  lo  signo  y  firmo  en  Te- 
pic  a  trcce  de  Noviembre  de  mil  ochocientos  cuarenta  y  nueve. 

JESUS  VEJAR. 

Los  infrascriptos  Escribanos  Publicos  en  esta  Ciudad,  certificamos  y 
damos  % :  que  el  signo  y  firma  con  que  se  halla  autorizada  la  prese- 
dente  copia  es  del  Escribano  Publico  Don  Jesus  Vejar  quien  se  halla 
ejerciendo  su  profecion  en  este  misma  Ciudad.  Y  en  comprovacion 
sentamos  la  presente  en  Topic  a  trece  de  Noviembre  de  mil  ochocien- 
tos cuarenta  y  nueve. 

Panfilo  Solis. 

Eusebio  Fernandez. 

I,  Eustace  W.  Barron,  H.  B.  M.  Consul  for  San  Bias,  hereby 
certify,  that  the  foregoing  signatures  are  in  the  true  hand- 
writing of  the  subscribers  who  hold  the  situations  therein 
represented,  and  are  worthy  of  all  faith  and  credit. 
Given  under  my  hand  and  seal  sf  office,  in  the  City  of 
[seal.]         Tepic,  this  13th  day  of  November,  1849. 

EUSTACE  W.  BARRON. 


547 
0.  H.  X.  No.  7  1-2. 

[In  pencil.] 

Berreyesa's  Farm,  17  Feb.  1848. 

My  Dear  Sir  :  The  widow  has  agreed  to  have  the  line  of  demar- 
cation between  the  sitios  of  the  mine  and  her  land,  to  be  placed  upon 
the  summit  of  the  second  hill  from  her  plain,  (upon  which  one  of  her 
sons  is  now  gone  to  put  up  a  white  flag  in  a  tree,)  and  to  run  along 
that  ridge  down  to  the  stream  near  the  road  which  the  said  line  will 
cross,  and  skirting  along  the  base  of  the  hills  near  the  plain,  until  it 
reaches  Cook's  line  or  boundary  between  his  land  and  the  widow's. 
This  measure  will  take  in  the  greater  part  of  the  Canada,  and  I  think 
that  it  will  be  very  near  the  line  you  pointed  out  to  Mr.  Lyman. 

The  widow  has  desired  me  to  state  to  you,  that  she  wishes  to  have 
her  land  measured  as  follows :  One  league  upon  the  line  of  division 
between  herself  and  Cook,  and  a  parallel  line  to  be  run  to  that  between 
her  land  and  the  Bernales,  but  that  if  you  are  desirous  to  have  the 
strip  from  the  point  of  the  hill  towards  the  lomita  near  Cook's,  that  she 
is  willing  to  arrange  the  matter  of  purchase  with  you,  and  will  be  glad 
for  you  to  make  her  an  offer  for  that  part  of  it. 
I  am,  my  dear  sir, 

Your  obt.  serv't, 

JAS.  ALEX.  FORBES. 

Alex.  Forbes,  Esq.,  New  Almaden. 

(Endorsed:)  Jas.  A.  Forbes,  Feb'y.  1848.  Description  of  land 
agreed  to  be  included  in  mine  tract. 


0.  H.  X.  No.  8. 

No.  4. 

Por  cuanto  Don  Jose*  Castro,  vecino  de  Monterey  en  el  Territorio 
de  la  Alta  California,  socio  en  una  Mina  de  Azogue,  ubicada  en  la  ju- 
risdiction del  Pueblo  de  San  Jose'  de  Guadalupe,  y  cuya  mina  es  cono- 
cida  con  el  nombre  de  Almaden  de  Santa  Clara ;  otorg6  en  el  Puerto 
de  Monterey,  &  los  doce  dias  del  mes  de  Junio  de  mil  ochocientos  cua- 
renta  y  seis,  un  poder  especial,  autorizando  el  Presbytero  Don  Eugenio 
Macnamara,  para  que  contratase  con  una  Compania  Ynglesa,  que  se 
hiciese  ca«go  de  la  elaboracion  y  avio  de  la  enunciada  mina  de  Azo- 
gue ;  cuyo  contrato  realizo  el  dho.  Sor  Macnamara  ;  en  la  Ciudad  de 
Tepic,  en  veinte  de  Noviembre  de  mil  ochocientos  cuarenta  y  seis,  con 
el  Sor  Don  Alexandre  Forbes,  Consul  y  subdito  Britanico  ;  por  si,  y 
&  nombre  de  la  Compania  que  representa ;  reduciendolo  k  escritura 


548 

publica  otorgada  por  escribano  publico  ;  y  aprobada  y  ratificada,  por 
Don  Andres  Castillero,  residentc  en  la  Ciudad  de  Mexico  ;  y  socio  tam- 
bien  en  la  referida  mina.  Y  habiendose  obligado  este  Senor  a  recabar 
el  esplicito  consentimiento  y  ratificacion  del  referido  contrator  por  parte 
de  sus  consocios,  residentes  en  este  Departamento  ;  por  las  dudas 
que  pudieren  suscitarse  acerca  de  la  representacion  del  Sr.  Macna- 
mara. 

Yo,  Diego  Alexandro  Forbes,  Vice  Consul  S  M.  B.  para  Californias, 
autorizado  con  poder  general,  amplio  e  ilimitado  de  los  Srs.  Don  Se- 
cundino  Robles  y  Don  Teodoro  Robles ;  socios  en  la  enunciado  Mina 
de  Almaden  de  Santa  Clara :  Digo,  que  otorgo  en  la  mas  solomne 
forma  que  haja  lugar  en  derecho  ;  y  me  obligo  a  cumplir  exacta  y  re- 
ligiosomente,  todo  cuanto  contiene  la  espresada  escritura  del  contrato 
celebrado  con  el  Sor.  Don  Alexandro  Forbes  y  la  Compania  que  repre- 
senta.  Lo  apruebo  y  ratifico  en  todas  sus  partes,  queriendo  que  se 
rae  tenga  por  uno  de  los  obligados  al  cumplimiento  de  su  literal  tenor, 
desde  su  celebracion,  hasta  cumplidos  los  diez  y  seis  anos  estipulados 
en  dicho  contrato,  en  la  inteligencia,  de  que  todas  las  gracias  y  privile- 
gios  que  haya  concedido,  6  que  en  lo  futuro  concediere  el  Supremo 
Gobierno  de  Mexico,  a  los  Srs.  Duenos  de  la  enunciada  Mina  de  Azo- 
gue  de  Almaden  de  Santa  Clara,  en  recompensa  6  substitution  del 
premio  6  gratificacion  ofrecida  por  el  mismo  Gobierno  (como  consta 
por  sus  decretos)  por  el  descubrimiento  y  elaboracion  de  esta  clase 
minas,  seran  disfrutados  por  los  duenos  de  esta,  conforme  k  las  acciones 
que  poseen  en  ella. 

En  testirnonio  de  todo  lo  que  antecede,  y  para  su  fiel  y  exacto  cum- 
plimiento, he  firmado  este  documento,  a  nombre  de  mis  espresados 
comitentes,  en  papel  simple  a  causa  de  la  total  falta  del  sellado,  y  lo  he 
autorizado  con  mi  sello  oficial,  por  falta  tambien  de  autoridad  compe- 
tente  en  este  lugar.  Mision  de  Santa  Clara,  Alta  California,  Republica 
Mejicana,  a  los  cuatro  dias  del  mes  de  Mayo  de  1847. 

DIEGO  ALEJANDRO  FORBES. 

\  Sello 


549 


Sello  Cuatro. 


Un  Real. 


Jesus  Vejar  Escribano  Publico  en  esta  Ciudad  : 

Certifico  y  doy  fd  que  la  firma  que  antecede  del  Senor  Don  Diego 
Alejandro  Forbes  con  que  se  subscribe  el  presedente  poder  otorgado 
por  Don  Jose"  Castro  es  la  que  usa  y  aconstumbra  como  Vice  Consul 
de  S.  M.  Britanica  en  la  Alta  California  bajo  el  sello  que  asi  mismo  se 
ve*,  y  con  tal  caracter  de  Vice  Consul  es  reconocido  por  las  casas 
mercantiles  de  ultramar  en  esta  ciudad,  dando  fd  y  credito  k  los  instru- 
ments autenticos  que  dicho  Seiior  ha  espedido,  Y  por  esta  razon  asi 
legaliso  su  firma. 

Y  k  pedimento  de  los  Senores  Barron,  Forbes  y  Compania  signo  y 
firmo  el  presente  en  Tepic  a  diez  y  och  de  Marzo  de  mil  ochocientos 
cincuenta,  dejando  rubricada  aquella  constancia. 

JESUS  VEJAR. 

El  Alcalde  1°.  constitutional  y  Escribano  Publico  que  firmamos,  cer- 
tificamos  y  damos  fe,  que  el  signo  y  firma  que  antecede  autorizando  el 
presendente  certificado,  es  del  Escribano  Publico  en  esta  ciudad  Don 
Jesus  Vejar,  quien  se  hallo  en  el  ejercicio  de  su  profecion.  Asi  lo 
comprobamos  en  Tepic  a  diez  y  ocho  de  Marzo  del  mil  ochocientos  cin- 
cuenta. 

Eusebio  Fernandez. 

Loreto  Corona. 


Consulate  of  the  United  Stales. 
I,  George  W.  P.  Bissell,  Consul  of  the  United  States  of  North 
America,  for  this  district,  hereby  certify  that  the  signatures  attached 
to  the  foregoing  document,  are  in  the  true  handwriting  of  the  subscri- 
bers, who  legally  hold  the  situations  therein  represented,  and  are  wor- 
thy of  all  faith  and  credit. 


550 

^      In  testimony  whereof,  I  hereunto  set  my  hand,  and  seal  of 

seal  >  office,  in  the  city  of  Tepic,  this  first  day  of  December,  in  the 
— —  '  year  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  fifty. 

G.  W.  P.  BISSELL. 

U.  S.  Consul. 


0.  H.  X.  No.  9. 


Jesus  Vejar,  Escribano  Publico  en  esta  Ciudad  : 

Certifico  y  doy  fe*  que  el  Seiior  Don  Alejandro  Forbes,  socio  en 
la  Compania  Comercial  Yngleza  en  esta  ciudad  me  ha  presenfcado  con 
diez  fojas  en  el  papel  sello  primero  y  cuarto  el  testimonio  de  una  es- 
critura,  la  cual  es  al  pie  de  laletra  como  sigue : 

"  En  la  ciudad  de  Mexico  k  diez  y  siete  de  Diciembre  de  mil  ocho- 
ctentos  cuarenta  y  seis,  ante  mi  el  Escribano  Publico  y  testigos,  pre- 
sente  el  Sor.  Don  Andres  Castillero,  Capitan  de  Caballeria  Perma- 
nente  de  esta  vecindad,  cuya  persona  mayor  de  edad  doy  fe  conosco  y 
dijo  :  que  por  el  documento  que  presenta,  consta  que  como  dueno  de 
una  mina  de  plata  con  ley  de  oro  y  azogue,  ubicada  en  el  Rancho  de 
Don  Jose*  Reyes  Berreyesa  en  la  jurisdiccion  del  Pueblo  de  San  Jose 
de  Guadalupe,  del  Territorio  de  la  Alta  California,  en  el  segundo  Dis- 
trito  de  Monterey,  y  cuya  mina  se  conoce  con  el  nombre  de  Santa 
Clara,  celebro  un  contrato  de  compania  de  dicha  mina  con  los  Senores 
Comandante  General  Don  Jose*  Castro,  Don  Secundino  Robles,  y  Don 
Teodoro  Robles ;  asi  como  con  el  Reberendo  Padre  Fray  Jose  Maria 
del  Refugio  Suarez  del  Real,  como  secionario  perpetuo  de  sus  con- 
socios  por  cuatro  Barras  de  la  mencionada  Mina,  cuyo  documento 
otorgado  en  la  Mision  de  Santa  Clara  a  dos  de  Noviembre  de  mil  ocho- 
cientos  cuarenta  y  cinco  en  copia  sacada  del  original  que  existe  en  el 
Archivo  del  Partido,  autorizada  por  el  Sor.  Don  Manuel  Castro  y  Don 
Antonio  Maria  Pico,  doy  fe  tener  a  la  vista  en  las  citadas  dos  fojas 
utiles  en  papel  comun.  Que  el  relacionado  Don  Jose  Castro  su  con- 
socio  por  si  y  a  nombre  de  los  socios  de  la  mencionada  mina  otorgd  en 
el  Puerto  de  Monterey  k  los  doce  dias  del  mes  de  Junio  del  corriente 
ano  de  mil  ochocientos  cuarenta  y  seis,  un  poder  especial,  pero  ampleo, 
k  favor  del  Presvitero  Don  Eugenio  Macnamara  para  que  contrate  con 
una  compania  Ynglesa  que  se  hiciese  cargo  del  laborio  de  las  tres  per- 
tenencias  que  a  Castro  y  socios  les  corresponden  en  la  espresada  mina 
con  el  objeto  de  proporcionarle  los  avios  y  gastos  necesarios  para  el 
aumento  de  la  negociacion :  todo  con  entera  sujecion  &  lo  que  para 
casos  como  el  presente  disponen  las  ordenanzas  de  mineria.  Que  con 
tal  autorizacion,  el  prenotado  Sefior  Presvitero  Don  Eugenio  Macna- 
mara, en  la  ciudad  de  Tepic,  a  viente  y  ocho  de  Noviembre  del  eorri- 


551 

ente  ano  de  mil  ochocientos  cuarenta  y  seis,  realizo  el  contrata  para 
que  fue  autorizado  con  el  Senor  Don  Alexandro  Forbes  por  si  y  a  nom~ 
bre  de  la  compania  Yngleza  que  representa,  reduciendolo  4  Escritura 
Publica  otorgada  ante  el  Escribano  Publico  Don  Panfilo  Solis,  cuyo 
tenor  con  el  poder  que  justifica  la  represen-  corregido 
tacion  del  Senor  Macnamara  es  como  sigue  :  {almaunanlubnca. 

Escritura deTcpic.  En  la  Ciudad  de  Tepic  4  veinte  y  ocho  de  Noviembre  de 
mil  ochocientos  cuarenta  y  seis,  ante  mi  el  Escribano  y  testigos,  el 
Presvitero  Don  Eugenio  Macnamara  actual  residente  en  este  lugar, 
dijo :  que  Don  Jose*  Castro,  vecino  del  Puerto  de  Monterey,  como  socio 
en  la  Mina  de  Azogue  que  se  haya  en  la  comprension  de  Santa  Clara, 
y  4  noinbre  de  sus  consocios,  que  le  cedieron  sus  derechos  para  que 
contratase  con  una  compania  Yngleza  la  elaboracion  de  dicha  Mina,  le 
confirio  poder  con  este  objeto,  el  cual  otorgado  ante  cuatro  testigos  en 
dicho  Puerto,  a  doce  de  Junio  del  corriente  ano  doy  £8  tener  41a  vista 
original,  y  su  tener  a  la  letra  dice  : 

poder.  En  el  Puerto  de  Monterey  4  los  doce  dias  del  mes  de  Junio 
de  mil  ochocientos  cuarenta  y  seis.  Yo  Jose  Castro  con  presencia  de 
los  testigos  que  al  fin  se  nombraran  :  usando  del  derecho  que  me  han 
otorgado  mis  socias  para  celebrar  cualesquiera  contrato  que  se  pudiera 
ofrecer,  con  respecto  a  las  tres  pertenencias  que  por  justos  titulos  y 
como  descubridores  tenemos  en  la  Mina  de  Azogue,  situada  en  la  com- 
prencion  de  Santa  Clara,  y  favoreciendoles  las  ordenanzas  de  mineria 
y  leyes  concernientes,  especialmente  el  soberano  decreto  de  siete  de 
Octubre  de  mil  ochocientos  viente  y  tres,  para  que  se  proporcione  el 
grande  provecho  y  utilidad  al  laborio  de  esta  clace  de  minas,  y  siendo 
la  que  poseen  en  la  actuatidad,  la  primera  unica  y  principal  por  su 
ley,  que  se  ha  descubierto  en  la  Nacion  Mejicana  ;  y  que  no  pudiendo 
el  Gobierno  Supremo  darles  los  aucilios  que  les  corresponden  por  hal- 
larse  en  una  distancia  immenza  y  ultramarina,  sin  esperanza  de  que 
este  pais  por  si  mismo  fomente  esftr  interesante  ramo  por  no  tenor  nin- 
gunos  fondas  de  que  disponer,  y  sin  encontrarse  al  mismo  tiempo  un 
facultativo  mineralogico,  ni  haber  brazos  para  el  laborio  continuo  que 
se  requiere,  para  el  adelanto  de  esta  industria  desconocida  en  este  De- 
partamento ;  ha  convenido  y  conviene  dar  poder  especial,  amplio,  bas- 
tante  y  por  cuanto  por  derecho  se  requiera,  mas  pueda  y  deba  valer  al 
Presvitero  Don  Eugenio  Macnamara,  para  que  representando  su  per- 
sona y  la  de  sus  socios  contrate  con  una  compania  Yngleza  con  esclu- 
cion  de  cualquiera  otra  Nacion  para  que  se  haga  cargo  del  laborio  de 
las  tres  pertenencias  de  dicha  Mina  por  el  tiempo  de  nueve  anos  con 
el  fin  de  proporcionar  los  avios,  hacer  los  gastos  necesarios  y  mantenerla 
en  buen  giro  y  con  arreglo  4  las  mencionadas  ordenanzas  de  mineria, 
siendo  los  productos  de  las  tres  pertenencias  de  la  Mina,  para  los 
duenos  una  mitad  y  la  otra  mitad  para  la  compania  Yngleza  y  cuando 


552 

no  se  pudiere  convenir  a  cllo,  se  ofrecera  a  la  compania  Yngleza 
las  dos  terceras  partes  para  que  los  dueiios  reciban  la  otra  tercera 
parte,  entendiendose  que  la  parte  que  corresponde  a  los  duenos  sera- 
fibre  de  gastos ;  y  si  aun  en  esto  no  hubiere  convenio.  Se  haran  otras 
estipulaciones  de  acuerdo  con  Don  Andres  Castilleros,  para  facilitar  la 
realizacion  de  un  contrato  ;  y  concluido  el  tiempo  mencionado  de  nueve 
anos  se  prorrogaran  otros  siete  anos  mas,  en  los  terminos  que  se  celebre 
la  primera  contrata,  quedando  la  negociacion,  despues  de  todo  este 
tiempo  a  disposicion  absoluta  de  los  duenos  de  la  Mina,  como  tambien 
todos  los  materiales,  fabricas  y  demas  pertenencias  que  a  ella  les  cor- 
responden,  como  maquinas  y  demas  utiles  adherentes  a  este  beneficio, 
sin  que  por  causa  alguna  tenga  la  compania  Yngleza  derecho  a  recla- 
mar  cualesquiera  otra  clace  de  gastos  que  para  su  veneficio  y  propia 
utilidad  llegare  a  originar. 

Y  a  la  firmeza  y  validacion  de  lo  que  en  vertud  de  este  poder  se 
ejecutare,  se  obliga  el  otorgante  en  toda  forma  de  derecho  a  su  com- 
plemiento,  y  para  lo  cual  se  somete  a  los  Seiiores  Jueces  que  del  caso 
deban  conocer,  en  cuyo  testimonio  lo  firmo  con  los  cuatro  testigos  que 
lo  son  Don  David  Spence,  Don  Juan  Malarin,  Don  Manuel  Dias  y 
Don  Antonio  Maria  Pico,  en  el  dia  mes  y  ano  ya  mencionados. 

JOSE  CASTRO. 
David  Spence, 
Manuel  Dias, 
Juan  Malarin, 
Antonio  Maria  Pico. 

Que  el  inserto  poder  no  le  esta  revocado  ni  limitado  en  raa- 
EscrituX  nera  alguna  ;  y  que  despues  de  haber  solicitado  con  el  mayor 
de  Tepie.  empeno  el  negocio  para  que  fue  facultado,  ha  celebrado  con 
el  Sefior  Don  Alejandro  Forbes,  subdito  y  Consul  Britanico  por  si,  y 
por  sus  socios  en  esta  empresa,  el  contrato  que  espresan  las  siguientes 
condiciones : 

la.  Primera :  El  Sefior  Don  Alejandro  Forbes  y  sus  socios  se  ha- 
cen  cargo  del  laborio  de  las  tres  pertenencias  que  comprhende  dicha 
Mina  de  Azogue  por  el  termino  de  diez  y  seis  ailos,  segun  esta  facul- 
tado por  el  inserto  poder,  y  sin  que  sea  nesesario  el  acuerdo  de  Don 
Andres  Castillero,  en  razon  de  que  este  contrato  esta  fuera  de  los  lim- 
ites  para  que  fue  autorizado  el  relacionado. 

2a.  Seg anda :  Que  el  Senor  Forbes  y  socios  estan  en  la  obliga cion 
de  proporcionar  los  avios  nesesarios,  erogar  los  gastos  presisos  y 
mantener  la  Mina  en  buen  giro  y  con  arreglo  a  las  ordenanzas  de  mi- 
neria. 

3a.   lercera :  Que  de  los  productos  de  las   tres  pertenencias  que 


553 

comprhende  la  Mina,  percibiran,  dos  terceras  partes  el  Senor  Forbes 
y  sus  socios,  quedando  la  otra  parte  a  favor  de  los  dueSos,  sin  que  de 
ella  se  dedusca  gasto  alguno. 

4a.  Cuarta :  Que  concluidos  los  diez  y  seis  anos  de  esta  compaiiia 
queda  la  negociacion  a  la  disposicion  absoluta  de  los  duenos,  asi  como 
todos  los  materiales,  fabricas,  y  demas  pertenencias  que  a  ella  le  cor- 
respondan,  como  maquinas  y  otros  utiles  anecsos  a  la  negociacion  ;  y 
por  nungun  motivo  tendran  derecho  a  reclamar  el  Senor  Forbes  y  sus 
socios,  cualesquiera  otra  clace  de  gastos  que  para  su  beneficio  y  propia 
utilidad  lleguen  a  originarse. 

Presente  el  Senor  Don  Alejandro  Forbes,  cuya  persona  doy  ft}  con- 
osco,  por  si  y  como  representante  de  los  demas  accionistas  en  este  asi- 
unto,  6  impuesto  de  las  anteriores  condiciones  del  poder  incerto  dijo ; 
que  aquellas  estan  arregladas  en  un  todo  a  los  terminos  con  que  ha 
celebrado  este  negocio.  • 

Ambos  otorgantes  manifestaron  :  que  este  contrato  queda  celebrado 
bajo  las  condiciones  estipulodas  que  se  obligan  a  observar  y  cumplir 
religiosamente,  sin  interpretaeion,  y  a  no  reclamar  esta  escritura  en 
todo  ni  en  parte,  y  el  que  faltare  sera  estrechado  a  su  observancia  por 
la  via  ejecutiva,  asi  como  al  pago  de  los  perjuicios  y  gastos  que  se  ori- 
ginen,  cuyo  monto  defieren  en  la  relacion  jurada  de  quien  sea  parte,  sin 
otra  prueba  de  que  se  releban,  aunque  se  requiera  de  derecho.  Y  a 
la  firmeza  de  todo  lo  referido  obligan  los  otorgantes  sus  bienes  y  los  de 
los  socios  de  la  Mina  y  del  Senor  Forbes,  y  los  sometan  a  la  jurisdic- 
cion  de  los  Seilores  Jueces  que  de  sus  causas  deban  conocer,  para  que 
a  cumplimiento  los  estrechen  como  por  sentencia  definitiva,  consen- 
tida  y  pasada  en  autoridad  de  cosa  juzgada.  Asi  lo  otorgan  y  firma- 
ron  siendo  testigos  los  ciudadanos  Nicolas  Figueroa,  Manuel  Covarru- 
bias  y  Luis  Villalbaso  presentes  y  vecinos  ;  doy  fe\ 

EUGENIO  MACNAMARA. 

Alejandro  Forbes, 

Panfilo  Solis. 

Sacose  de  su  registro  hoy  dia  de  su  otorgamiento  en  estas  cuatro 
fojas  del  papel  correspondiente  :  doy  fe*. 

(un  signo)  PANFILO  SOLIS, 

Escribano  Publico. 

Concuercla  la  anterior  escritura  con  la  copia  original  que 
laSritum     en  cuatro  fojas  utiles  doy  ft  tenen  a  la  vista. 
Sueeiaprey-         El  prenotado   Senor  Don  Andres  Castillero  continuo  di- 
eente.  ciendo  :  que  en  la  mas  solemne  forma  que  haya  lugar  en 

derecho  otorga  :  que  se  obliga  a  cumplir  por  su  parte  exacta  y  religi- 
osamente como  uno  de  los  socios  contratrantes  con  el  Senor  Forbes  todo 
cuanto  contiene  la  escritura  incerta,  que   aprueba  y  ratifica  en  todas 
43 


554 

sus  partes,  queriendo  que  se  le  tenga  desde  este  momento  por  una  de 
los  obligados  al  cumplimiento  de  su  literal  tenor. 

Desde  hoy  hasta  cumplidos  los  diez  y  seis  anos  del  contrato,  se  obli- 
ga  y  a  sus  herederos  y  susesores  k  no  reclamar  cosa  alguna  contra  la 
escritura  incerta ;  pero  si  lo  hiciere  quiere  no  ser  oido  en  juicio  ni 
fuera  de  el. 

Cede  en  favor  del  Avio  y  por  los  diez  y  seis  anos  de  la  contrata,  los 
dos  sitios  de  ganado  mayor  de  que  el  Supremo  Gobierno  le  tiene  hecha 
gracia,  segun  consta  por  el  documento  oficial  que  presenta  para  que 
quede  copeado  al  final  de  la  presente  escritura  y  saiga  incerto  en  las 
copias  que  de  ella  se  espidan. 

Y  por  cuanto  4  la  falta  de  solemnidad  que  pueda  notarse  en  el  poder 
incerto  en  la  escritura  que  va  copeada  en  la  presente,  se  obliga  4  re- 
cabar  el  esplicito  consentimiento  de  sus  consocios  que  ratificaran  la  pre- 
sente escritura  para  quitar  las  dudas  que  puedan  ocurrir  a  cerea  de 
la  representacion  del  Padre  Don  Eugenio  Macnamara  por  los  consocios 
del  Senor  Castro  y  del  que  habla.  Declara  igualmente  que  esta  anu- 
ente  de  que  el  contrato  de  que  hobla  esta  escritura  no  tenga  efecto 
hasta  que  la  compafiia  Yngleza  se  halle  en  quieta  y  pacifica  posecion 
de  la  Mina  a  que  se  refiere. 

Con  cuyas  calidades  y  condiciones  el  prenotado  Senor  Castillero  se 
obliga  por  su  parte  al  cumplimiento  de  cuanto  queda  dicho  ;  y  asegura 
que  para  el  otorgamiento  de  la  presente  escritura  no  ha  sido  engauado ; 
sino  antes  le,  es  util  &  sus  intereses,  y  que  en  el  no  hay  mas  condi- 
ciones que  las  espresadas,  ni  el  convenio  envuelve  lesion  ni  usura  de 
ninguna  especie,  como  lo  jura  por  Dios  y  la  Senal  de  la  Cruz  ;  pero  si 
alguna  resultare  del  ecseso  le  hace  gracia  y  donacion  a  la  compafiia 
Yngleza,  pura,  perfecta  6  irrevocable,  con  insinuacion  y  renunciacion 
de  la  ley  segunda  titulo  primer  o,  libro  diez  de  la  novicima  recopilacion. 

Desde  hoy  hasta  cumplidos  los  diez  y  seis  anos  del  contrat  >  y  reser- 
vandose  unicamente  los  derechos  que  por  el  dominio  y  propiedad  le 
pertenecen  del  de  posecion  y  demas  que  tenga,  se  desapodera,  quita  y 
aparta,  asi  como  a  sus  herederos,  y  todos  los  cede,  renuncia  y  traspasa 
en  el  relacionado  Senor  Forbes  como  representante  de  la  compania 
Yngleza,  &  quien  por  la  presente  le  confiere  ampleo  poder  y  facultad 
bastante,  constituyendolo  procurador  en  su  propia  causa,  para  que  con 
sugecion  &  las  ordenanzas  de  mineria,  y  con  total  arreglo  &  la  presente 
escritura,  se  aproveche  la  compania  de  los  productos  que  con  arreglo 
a  la  misma  le  pertenecen  practicando  todo  lo  demas  para  que  esta  fa- 
cultada. 

Se  obliga  &  la  evicion  seguridad  y  saneamiento  de  este  contrato  que 
por  su  parte  le  asegura  le  sera  cierto  y  seguro,  y  que  por  el  no  se  le 
movera  pleito  ;  pero  si  alguno  resultare,  de  su  cuenta  lo  seguira  hasta 
dejar  a  la  compania  en  quieta  y  pacifica  posecion,  b  que  si  no  lograre 
le  pagara  tonos  los  danos  y  perjuicios  con  las  contas  procesales  y  per- 


555 

sonales  que  se  causen.  Se  sujeta  al  tenor  literal  de  la  ley  primera, 
tit ulo  primer o  libro  diez  de  la  novicima  reeopilacion,  cuyo  contenido 
sabe  y  quiere  se  le  tenga  por  obligado  al  cumplimiento  de  la  presente 
escritura. 

Y  siendo  presente  el  Senor  Don  Francisco  Martinez  Negrete  de  esta 
vecindad  cuya  persona  mayor  de  edad  doy  fe  conozco,  6  impuesto  del 
contenido  de  esta  escritura  dijo ;  que  teniendo  orden  espresa  y  facul- 
tad  bastante  por  el  Senor  Alejandro  Forbes,  a  su  nombre  y  el  de  la 
compania  Yngleza,  acepta  este  instrumento  dando  por  contentos  y  sat- 
isfechos  a  los  interesados  en  ella.  El  varias  veces  dieho  el  Senor  Don 
Andres  Castillero  al  cumplimiento  de  cuanto  queda  espuesto,  obliga  su 
persona  y  bienes  presentes  y  futuros  y  con  ellos  se  somete  al  fuero  y 
jurisdiccion  de  los  Seiiores  Jueces  que  de  sus  causas  conforme  a  dere- 
cho  puedan  y  deban  conocer,  para  que  a  ello  lo  compelan  y  apremien 
como  por  sentencia  definitiva,  consentida  y  pasada  en  autoridad  de  cosa 
juzgada ;  renuncio  su  domicilio  y  vecindad  con  la  general  del  derecho 
y  la  que  prohibe  su  general  renunciacion.  Y  por  ante  mi  asi  lo  otorg6 
y  firm6  con  el  Senor  Negrete,  siendo  testigos  Don  Manuel  Ferraras, 
Don  Octaviano  de  la  Rosa,  y  Don  Manuel  Barron  presentes  y  vecinos  : 
doy  fe*. 

ANDRES  CASTILLERO. 

Francisco  Martinez  Negrete. 

Nazario  Fuentes, 
Escribano  National  y  Publico. 
Documen-        Certifico  y  doy  fe* :  que  el  documento  oficial  de  que  8e 
to  oflciai.       habla  en  la  anterior  escritura  es  del  tenor  siguiente : 

Al  Ma  \  Ministerio  de  Relaciones  Esteriores 

^  n        (  GOBERNACION  Y  POLIClA. 

Escelentisimo  Senor  : 

El  Escelentisimo  6  Y.  S.  Ministro  de  Justicia,  en  oficio  de  viente 
del  corriente,  me  dice  lo  que  copio : 

Escelentisimo  Senor :  Hoy  digo  al  Escelentisimo  Senor  Don  Vicente 
Segura,  Precidente  de  la  Junta  de  Fomento  de  Minoria,  lo  siguiente  : 

Escelentisimo  Senor :  Habiendo  dado  cuenta  al  Exmo.  Senor  Preci- 
dente interino  con  la  nota  de  V.  E.  de  catorce  del  presente  a  que  se  sirvi6 
acompaiiarme,  con  recomendacion,  la  solicitud  del  Senor  Don  Andres 
Castillero  para  el  fomento  cle  la  Mina  de  Azogue  qua  ha  descubierto  en 
la  Mision  de  Santa  Clara  en  la  Alta  California,  se  ha  servido  Su  Es- 
celencia  aprobar  en  todas  sus  partes  el  convenio  celebrado  con  dicho 
individuo  para  principiar  la  explotacion  de  dicho  mineral,  y  con  esta 
fecha  se  hace  la  comunicacion  que  correspende  al  Ministerio  de  Re- 
laciones Esteriores  y  Gobernacion,  para  que  libre  las  ordenas  oportu- 


556 

nas  por  lo  respectivo  a  lo  que  contiene  la  octava  proposicion,  relativa 
a  la  eoncecion  de  terrenos  en  aquel  Departamento. 

Y  tengo  el  honor  de  incertarlo  4  V.  E.  a  fin  de  que  por  lo  respec- 
tivo a  la  solicitud  del  Senor  Castillero,  a  que  ha  tenido  a  bien  acceder 
el  Escelentisimo  Precidente  interino,  sobre  que  como  colono  se  le  con- 
ceda  dos  sitios  de  ganado  major  sobre  el  terreno  de  su  posecion  mi- 
neria,  se  serva  V.  E.  librar  las  ordenes  de  que  se  trata. 

Keitero  a  V.  E.  et  cetera. 

Y  lo  participo  &>  V.  E.  para  que  con  arreglo  a  lo  que  prevengan  las 
leyes  y  disposiciones  sobre  colonizacion,  ponga  al  Senor  Castillero  en 
posecion  de  los  dos  sitios  que  se  mencionan. 

Dios  y  Libertad. 

Mexico  y  Mayo  viente  y  tres  de  mil  ochocientos  cuarenta  y  seis. 

CASTILLO  LANZAS. 
Escelentisimo  Senor  Gobernador  del  Departamento  de  Californias. 

Sacose  de  su  registro  dos  dias  despues  de  su  otorgamiento  para  el 

representante  de  la  compania  en  estas  diez  fojas  utiles  de  los  sellos 

primero  y  cuarto,  que  segun  la  ley  corresponden,  siendo  testigos  a  la 

aca  y  correccion  de  ella  y  de  los  documentos  incertos,  los  mismos  in- 

strumentales,  de  que  doy  fe\ 

Firmado  con  un  signo, 

NAZARIO  FUENTES. 
E.  N.  P. 

Los  Escribanos  Publicos  que  signamos  y  firmamos,  certificamos  y 
damos  fd  :  que  Don  Nazario  Fuentes  es  tambien  Escribano  Publico  de 
esta  capital  y  el  signo  y  firma  que  anteceden,  son  suyos,  los  mismos 
que  usa  y  aconstumbra  para  autorizar  los  documentos  que  ante  el  pasan 
como  tal  escribano  fiel  y  legal,  a  los  que  se  han  dado  y  dan  entera  fe 
y  credito.  En  fe  de  lo  cual  sentamos  la  presente,  que  va  autorizada 
con  el  sello  de  Nuestro  Nacional  Colegio  de  Escribanns  Mejico  a  diez 
y  nueve  de  Diciembre  de  mil  ochocientos  cuarenta  y  seis. 

Firmado  con  un  signo,  ROMULO  de  ZEVALLOS. 

Firmado  con  un  signo,  FRANCISCO  VILLALON. 

Firmado  con  un  signo,  ANDRES  YELLIO  MEGIA. 

Al  margen  un  Sello  que  dice  "  Colegio  Nacional  de  Escribanos  de 
Mejico,  aiio  de  1846." 

Y  a  solicitud  verbal  del  mismo  Senor  Don  Alejandro  Forbes  y  para 
el  uso  que  le  convenga  le  doy  el  presente  signando  y  firmando  en  Te- 
pic  a  tres  de  Diciembre  de  mil  ochocientos  cuarenta  y  nueve,  habien- 


557 

dose  usado  del  papel  comun  por  no  haber  del  sello  cuatro  en  las  oficinas 
de  su  espendio,  como  de  ella  doy  fe*. 

JESUS  VEJAR. 

El  Alcalde  segundo  y  Escribano  que  subscrimos  certificamos  y  da- 
mos  fe* :  que  el  signo  y  firma  con  que  se  halla  autorizada  la  presente 
copia  es  del  Escribano  Publico  en  esta  ciudad  Don  Jesus  Vejar  quien 
se  halla  en  el  ejercicio  de  su  profecion.  Asi  lo  comprobamos  en  Tepic, 
a  tres  de  Diciembre  de  mil  echocientos  cuarenta  y  nueva. 

PANFILO  SOLIS. 

Jose  A.  Esturia. 

British  Consulate. 
I,  Eustace  W.  Barron,  H.  B.  M.  Consul  for  Tepic  and  San  Bias, 
hereby  certify  that  the  foregoing  signatures  are  in  the  true  handwrit- 
ing of  the  subscribers,  who  hold  the  situations  therein  represented,  and 
are  worthy  of  all  faith  and  credit. 

, s      Given  under  my  hand  and  seal  of  office,  in  the  City  of 

\  seal  |  Tepic,  this  4th  day  of  December,  1849. 

< I  EUSTACE  W.  BARRON. 


ANSWER  IN  EQUITY,     [see  page  473.] 

In  the  Circuit  Court  of  the  United  States ,  for  the  Districts  of  Cali- 
fornia. 

James  Tobin,  et  al,  ) 

vs.  \  In  Equity. 

Robert  Walkinshaw,  et  al.  ) 

The  joint  and  several  answer  of  the  said  James  Alexander  Forbes, 
and  Robert  Walkinshaw,  and  William  E.  Barron,  defendants,  and  the 
disclaimer  of  the  said  James  Alexander  Forbes,  to  the  bill  of  complaint 
of  the  said  James  Tobin,  trustee,  and  Maria  Z.  Bernal  de  Berreyesa, 
Jose  de  los  Santos  Berreyesa,  and  others. 

These  defendants,  now  and  at  all  times  hereafter,  saving  and  re- 
serving unto  themselves  all  benefit  and  advantage  of  exception,  which 
can  or  may  be  had  or  taken  to  the  many  errors,  uncertainties,  or  other 
imperfections  in  said  complainants'  said  bill  of  complaint  contained,  for 
answer  thereto,  or  unto  so  much  and  such  parts  as  these  defendants 
are  advised  is  or  are  material  or  necessary  for  them  to  make  answer 
unto,  these  defendants  severally  answering,  say  : — 


558 

§1.  They  deny  that  on  the  twentieth  day  of  August,  A.  D.  1842, 
and  in  the  life  time  of  the  said  Jose*  Reyes  Berreyesa,  Juan  B.  Alva- 
rado,  then  Governor  or  Political  Chief  of  California,  granted  to  the 
said  Jose"  Reyes  Berreyesa,  for  the  use  of  himself  and  family,  a  certain 
tract  of  land,  situated  in  what  is  now  the  County  of  Santa  Clara,  in 
the  State  of  California,  and  districts  aforesaid,  known  as  the  Rancho 
de  la  Canada  de  los  Capitancillos,  or  the  Rancho  of  San  Vicente, 
bounded  on  the  west  by  the  lands  then  belonging  to,  and  known  as  the 
Rancho  of  Justo  Larios,  and  separated  therefrom  by  a  conventional 
line,  commencing  at  a  point  at  the  foot  of  the  range  of  low  hills  near 
the  Pueblo  of  San  Jose,  near  to  and  north  of  the  angle  formed  by  the 
junction  of  the  Arroyo  Seco  and  the  Arroyo  Alamitos,  and  running 
thence  south  through  the  said  angle  by  the  slope  of  the  hill  in  the  cen- 
tre of  the  Canada  to  the  Sierra  Azul;  on  the  south  by  tha  foot  of  the 
said  Sierra  ;  on  the  east  by  the  Laurel  Hills  ;  and  on  the  north  by  the 
said  low  pueblo  hills,  as  the  said  complainants  have  in  their  said  bill  of 
complaint  stated. 

§2.  And  these  defendants  further  severally  answering  say,  they 
are  informed  and  believe,  that  on  the  20th  day  of  August,  A.  D.  1842, 
the  said  Juan  B.  Alvarado,  then  Governor  of  the  Department  of  the 
Californias,  did  make  and  sign  a  document  of  concession,  intending  to 
grant  to  the  said  Jose*  Reyes  Berreyesa,  for  his  personal  benefit  and 
that  of  his  family,  a  part  of  the  place  named  the  "  Canada  of  the  Capi- 
tancillos," containing  an  area  equivalent  to  one  square  league,  bounded 
on  the  north  by  the  low  hills  adjoining  the  plain  of  the  Pueblo  of  San 
Jose* ;  on  the  south  by  the  Sierra  ;  on  the  east  by  the  Laurel  Hills, 
and  on  the  west  by  the  rancho  of  citizen  Justo  Larios,  which  has  for 
its  boundary  a  straight  line  drawn  southerly  from  the  angle  formed  by 
the  junction  of  the  Arroyo  Seco  and  the  Arroyo  de  los  Alamitos,  along 
the  eastern  base  of  the  hill,  which  is  situated  in  the  middle  of  said 
Canada,  to  the  Sierra  which  is  mentioned  and  described  in  the  title  of 
Justo  Larios,  and  on  the  map  referred  to  in  said  title  ;  which  title  or 
grant  to  the  said  Justo  Larios  was  made  by  the  said  Juan  B.  Alva- 
rado, Governor  as  aforesaid,  on  the  first  day  of  August,  A.  D.  1842 ; 
and  that  the  said  Governor  Alvarado  sent  the  said  document  of  con- 
cession, so  made  as  aforesaid  in  favor  of  the  said  Jose*  Reyes  Ber- 
reyesa, to  be  delivered  to  him. 

§3.  And  the  Defendants  further  severally  answering  say,  that  the 
said  Jose  Reyes  Berreyesa  refused  to  accept  the  said  grant  or  conces- 
sion, so  as  aforesaid  offered  to  him  by  the  said  Governor  Alvarado  ; 
and  with  his  own  hands  he  delivered  to  Manuel  Jimeno,  then  Secre- 
tary of  State  for  the  said  Department,  the  said  document  of  the  said 
intended  grant  or  concession,  declaring  to  the  said  Jimeno  that  he  the 
said  Jose*  Reyes  Berreyesa  refused  to  accept  the  said  grant  or  conces- 
sion, at  the  same  time  giving  the  reasons  for  his  refusal.     And  these 


559 

defendants  further  severally  answering  say,  that  after  the  said  refusal 
of  the  said  Jose*  Reyes  to  accept  the  grant  or  concession  of  the  land, 
so  as  aforesaid  intended  to  be  made  to  him  by  the  said  Governor  Al- 
varado,  to  wit,  on  the  10th  day  of  February,  1844,  he  the  said  Jose* 
Reyes  addressed  a  petition  to  Manuel  Micheltorena,  then  Governor  of 
the  said  Department,  setting  forth  that  he  had  no  title  to  the  said  land 
of  San  Vicente,  and  requesting  the  said  Governor  to  make  him  a  grant 
of  the  said  narrow  Canada  de  los  Capitancillos,  and  of  all  the  Lomaria 
or  hilly  land  adjoining  it,  and  extending  on  the  west  from  the  point  of 
the  hill  in  the  middle  of  the  Canada  to  the  plain  of  the  Arroyo  de  las 
Llagas  in  the  Sierra,  which  distance  he  describes  as  two  leagues,  a 
little  more  or  less,  and  declaring  moreover  in  the  said  petition,  that,  in 
the  year  1842,  Governor  Alvarado  had  sent  him  a  title  to  part  of  said 
land,  which  he  had  refused  to  accept. 

§4.  And  this  Defendant,  James  Alexander  Forbes,  for  himself  fur- 
ther answering,  saith  :  and  these  defendants,  Robert  Walkinshaw  and 
William  E..  Barron,  believe  it  to  be  true,  that  in  the  latter  part  of  Jan- 
uary or  early  part  of  February,  A.  D.  1848,  he  saw  in  the  hands  of 
the  Complainant,  Zacharias,  the  widow  of  the  said  Jose*  Reyes,  a  doc- 
ument purporting  to  be  a  grant  from  the  said  Governor  Micheltorena 
to  the  said  Jose*  Reyes,  dated  in  the  year  1844,  and  signed  with  the 
signature  of  the  said  Micheltorena ;  that  he  read  carefully  the  said 
document  which  purported  to  be  a  grant  or  concession  by  the  said 
Micheltorena  as  Governor  of  the  State  Department,  to  the  said  Jose* 
Reyes  Berreyesa  of  the  aforesaid  Rancho  de  San  Vicente,  Canada  de 
los  Capitancillos,  and  bore  the  genuine  signature  of  the  said  Michel- 
torena, with  which  this  Defendant  was  and  is  well  acquainted  ;  and 
this  defendant  further  saith,  and  the  Defendants  Walkinshaw  and  Bar- 
ron believe  it  to  be  true,  that  the  said  document,  was,  when  he  saw  it 
as  aforesaid,  by  the  said  Complainant  Zacharias,  widow  of  the  said 
Jose*  Reyes  Berreyesa,  deceased,  and  in  her  house  on  the  said  Rancho 
exhibited  to  this  Defendant,  and  to  Mr.  Alexander  Forbes,  who  was 
then  largely  interested  in  the  Mine  of  New  Almaden,  near  to  the  said 
Rancho,  and  who  requested  the  said  widow  to  show  him  the  title  pa- 
pers of  her  late  husband  the  said  Jose  Reyes,  to  the  Rancho  de  San 
Vicente,  in  order  that  he  might  know  how  near  their  lines  as  claimed 
by  the  said  widow  and  heirs  of  the  said  Jose*  Reyes  deceased,  came  to 
the  Mine  of  New  Almaden,  and  to  enable  him  to  have  a  survey  made 
of  the  Mining  Possession  hereinafter  to  be  mentioned,  and  of  the  grant 
of  two  square  leagues  around  the  mouth  of  the  Mine,  hereinafter 
to  be  mentioned,  so  that  there  might  be  no  dispute  concerning 
their  boundaries,  between  the  owners  of  the  Mine  and  Mining 
Possession,  and  the  said  two  square  leagues,  on  the  one  part, 
and  the  widow  and  heirs  and    the   said   deceased  Jose*  Reyes  on 


560 

the  other.  And  this  Defendant  saith,  that  in  the  document  of  title  so 
exhibited  as  aforesaid,  there  was  a  palpable  forgery  by  the  erasure  and 
alteration  of  the  words  "  un  sitio"  into  "  dos  sitios"  in  that  part  of 
the  title  which  described  the  quantity  of  land  intended  to  be  granted, 
which  was  observed  at  the  first  glance,  both  by  this  Defendant  and  the 
said  Alexander  Forbes,  and  by  them  mentioned  to  the  said  widow,  who 
denied  that  any  alteration  had  ever  been  made  in  the  original  grant ; 
and  upon  this  Defendant  and  the  said  Alexander  Forbes  insisting  that 
the  said  erasure  and  alteration  had  been  made,  and  were  too  apparent 
on  the  face  of  the  said  paper  to  be  doubted,  or  in  good  faith  denied,  it 
was  agreed  that  the  said  widow  should  send  one  of  her  sons  to  Monte- 
rey to  procure  a  certified  copy  of  the  said  concession,  for  comparison 
with  the  said  document,  which  was  accordingly  done  ;  and  afterwards, 
that  is  to  say,  a  few  days  before  the  14th  day  of  Feb'y,  1848,  the  son 
returned,  bringing  with  him  a  copy  of  said  grant  which  was  certified 
by  William  E.  P.  Hartnell,  who  was  at  that  time  Keeper  of  the  Ar- 
chives of  the  former  Mexican  Government  in  California,  and  as  such 
legally  in  charge  of  the  original  document  of  which  the  foregoing  was 
a  certified  copy.  And  this  Defendant  further  saith,  that  either  on  the 
14th  February,  A.  D.  1848,  or  a  few  days  thereafter,  he  saw  the  said 
certified  copy,  and  examined  it,  and  compared  it  with  the  document  of 
title  exhibited  as  aforesaid  by  the  said  widow,  and  found  it  to  be  in  all 
respects  a  true  and  accurate  copy  of  the  last  named  document,  with  the 
exception,  that  according  to  the  certified  copy,  only  one  square  league 
was  granted,  the  latter  containing  the  words  "  un  sitio"  in  the  place 
where  in  the  former,  the  said  words  had  been  by  erasure  and  alteration 
changed  into  "  dos  sitios"  as  aforesaid ;  that  this  Defendant  does  not 
now  remember  the  date  of  said  Micheltorena  concession  more  nearly 
than  that  it  was  dated  some  time  in  the  year  1844,  nor  does  this  De- 
fendant remember  the  boundaries  of  the  tract  of  land,  mentioned  in 
the  said  document  and  intended  to  be  granted  more  accurately  than 
that  the  said  title  purported  to  grant  to  the  said  Jose*  Reyes  Berreyesa, 
the  Rancho  of  San  Vicente,  part  of  the  Canada  de  los  Capitancillos. 
And  these  Defendants  aver  and  so  charge  the  truth  to  be,  that  the 
aforesaid  erasure  and  alteration  was  a  forgery  made  by  the  said  Jose* 
Reyes  Berreyesa,  in  his  life  time,  for  the  purpose  and  with  the  intent 
of  defrauding  the  Government  of  Mexico  of  a  portion  of  its  public  do- 
main, and  of  deceiving  the  said  Castillero,  by  making  him  believe  that  his 
newly  discovered  mine  was  not  situated  on  the  public  lands  of  Mexico, 
but  on  the  private  property  of  the  said  Berreyesa,  and  thereby  to  gain  a 
corrupt  advantage  at  the  expense  of  the  said  Castillero  ;  and  that  the 
said  grant  was  by  the  means  of  the  said  forgery  rendered  null  and  void. 
§5.  And  the  Defendants  further  severally  answering  say,  they  be- 
lieve it  to  be  true  that  the  said  complainants  have  in  their  possession, 
or  under  their  control,  a  document,  purporting  to  be  a  grant  or  con- 


561 

cesson,  made  on  the  20th  August,  A.  D.  1842,  to  the  said  Jose*  Reyes 
Berreyesa  in  his  life-time,  by  the  said  Governor  Alvarado,  for  the  use  of 
the  said  Jose  Reyes  and  that  of  his  family,  of  a  certain  tract  of  land 
situated  in  the  said  county  of  Santa  Clara,  and  in  the  Districts  afore- 
said, known  as  the  Rancho  of  the  Canada  de  los  Capitancillos,  and  that 
the  complainants  claim  the  said  tract  of  land,  under  and  by  virtue  of 
the  said  alleged  grant  or  concession  ;  and  these  defendants  do  further 
say,  they  believe  the  said  document  bears  the  genuine  signature  of  the 
said  Alvarado,  and  was  made  by  him,  and  by  him  sent  to  the  said  Jose 
Reyes  Berreyesa  in  the  life-time  of  the  latter,  and  in  the  year  1842, 
but  these  Defendants  say,  that  the  said  Jose  Reyes  Berreyesa,  when 
the  said  document  containing  the  said  concession  reached  him,  refused 
to  accept  the  said  grant  and  to  hold  the  said  lands  under  and  by  virtue 
of  the  title  so  offered  him,  and  with  his  own  hands  returned  the  said 
document,  to  the  said  Manuel  Jimeno  as  aforesaid,  stating  to  the  said 
Jimeno  his  unwillingness  to  accept  the  said  concession,  and  declaring 
his  refusal  to  accept  the  same,  and  that  thereby  the  said  document  of 
intended  concession  or  grant  (which  is  the  same  grant  alleged  by  the 
complainants  in  their  said  bill  of  complaint,  to  have  been  made  to  the 
said  Jose*  Reyes  Berreyesa,  by  the  said  Governor  Alvarado  on  the  20th 
day  of  August,  A.  D.  1842,)  was  rendered  inoperative  and  utterly 
without  effect,  and  did  not  transfer  from  the  Mexican  Nation  or  from 
any  other  source,  to  the  said  Jose  Reyes  Berreyesa  any  title  either 
legal  or  equitable  in  or  to  the  said  land  in  the  said  document  men- 
tioned and  described. 

§6.  And  these  Defendants  further  severally  answering  say,  that 
the  said  alleged  concession  to  Jose  Reyes  Berreyesa,  made  as  afore- 
said by  Governor  Alvarado,  on  the  20th  day  of  August,  1842,  was 
never  submitted  to  the  Departmental  Assembly  of  California,  and  was 
never  approved  by  that  Body.  And  further,  that  the  said  alleged 
concession  to  the  said  Jose'  Reyes,  was  intended  to  be  a  concession 
under  and  by  virtue  of  the  Colonization  Law  of  the  Mexican  Republic 
of  the  18th  August,  1824,  and  the  Executive  Regulations  of  21st 
November,  1828,  made  for  the  purposes  of  settlement,  cultivation,  and 
the  raising  of  stock,  and  did  not  convey  any  title  to  any  minerals 
within  the  land  intended  to  be  granted. 

§7.  And  these  Defendants  further '  severally  answering  say,  that 
the  said  document  of  concession,  now  set  up  in  the  complainants*"  bill 
of  complaint,  and  refused  and  rejected  by  the  said  Jose  Reyes  Ber- 
reyesa as  aforesaid,  was  never  after  the  said  refusal  of  the  said  Jose* 
Reyes  to  accept  the  same,  and  the  grant  or  concession  intended  by  the 
said  Alvarado  by  means  thereof  to  be  made  him,  delivered  to  the  said 
Jose  Reyes  or  to  any  person  for  him,  by  any  Governor  of  the  said  De- 
partment, nor  by  any  other  Mexican  authority  in  the  said  Department, 
nor  by  any  officer  or  person  whatsoever,  capable  of  making  the  grant 


562 

or  concession  intended  by  the  said  Alvarado  to  be  made  as  aforesaid, 
to  serve  him,  (the  said  Jose'  Reyes  Berreyesa,)  as  title  to  the  said 
lands,  nor  with  the  intention  on  the  part  of  such  officer  or  other  person, 
thereby  to  convey  any  right,  title,  interest  or  estate  to  the  said  Jos£ 
Reyes  Berreyesa,  in  and  to  the  lands  mentioned  and  described  in  the 
said  document ;  but  these  Defendants  believe  that  the  said  alleged 
document  of  title  was  fraudulently  stolen  and  taken  out  of  the  archives 
of  the  former  Mexican  Government  in  California,  since  the  year  1848, 
by  some  of  the  heirs  of  the  said  Jose'  Reyes  complainants,  either  per- 
sonally or  by  procurement,  they  well  knowing  that  the  said  concession, 
made  by  Micheltorena,  had  been  rendered  null  and  void  by  the  said 
forgery,  and  could  not  be  received  in  any  court  of  law  or  equity  of 
this  State  or  of  the  United  States,  or  by  the  United  States  Board  of 
Land  Commissioners  as  evidence  of  title,  either  legal  or  equitable. 

§8.  And  these  Defendants  further  severally  answering  say,  that 
the  tract  of  land  by  the  said  complainants,  in  their  said  bill  of  com- 
plaint, alleged  to  have  been  granted  on  the  20th  day  of  August,  1842, 
by  the  said  Governor  Alvarado  to  the  said  Jose'  Reyes,  is  correctly 
described  in  the  said  bill  as  far  as  regards  its  eastern  and  northern 
boundaries  according  to  the  terms  of  the  said  alleged  grant ;  and  that 
the  said  complainants,  in  their  said  bill  of  complaint,  have  also  cor- 
rectly described  the  western  boundary  of  said  tract  of  land  in  so  far  as 
they  have  described  it  as  bounded  on  the  west  by  the  Rancho  of  Justo 
Larios  ;  but  they  deny  that  according  to  the  terms  and  true  meaning 
of  the  said  alleged  grant,  the  said  tract  of  land  is  separated  from  the 
Rancho  of  Jugto  Larios  by  a  conventional  line,  commencing  at  a  point 
at  the  foot  of  the  range  of  low  hills,  near  the  Pueblo  of  San  Jose,  near 
to  and  north  of  the  junction  of  the  Arroyo  Seco  and  the  Arroyo  Ala- 
mitos,  and  running  thence  south  through  said  angle  by  the  slope  of  the 
hill  in  the  centre  of  the  Canada  to  the  Sierra  Azul,  as  the  said  com- 
plainants in  their  said  bill  of  complaint  have  alleged.  And  these  De- 
fendants say  that  the  complainants  in  so  much  of  their  said  bill  as 
states  and  describes  the  dividing  line  between  the  said  lands  of  Justo 
Larios,  and  the  said  tract  of  land  by  them  alleged  to  have  been  granted 
to  the  said  Jose*  Reyes  Berreyesa,  and  in  so  much  of  the  exhibit  by 
them  filed  with  their  said  bill  of  complaint,  and  marked  Exhibit  "  C  " 
as  pretends  to  delineate  the  said  dividing  line,  have  falsely  and  fraudu- 
lently described  and  delineated  said  line. 

§9.  And  these  Defendants  further  severally  answering  say,  that 
the  dividing  line  between  the  tract  of  land  so  alleged  by  the  com- 
plainants to  have  been  granted  to  the  said  Jose  Reyes  Berreyesa,  and 
the  said  rancho  of  Justo  Larios,  is  a  straight  line  commencing  at  the 
junction  of  the  said  Arroyo  Seco  and  the  Arroyo  de  los  Alamitos,  and 
running  thence  southerly  along  the  eastern  base  of  a  small  hill  near 
the  middle  of  the  Canada  until  it  reaches  the  Sierra. 


563 

§10.  And  these  Defendants  further  severally  answering  say,  that 
as  to  so  much  of  the  said  Complainants  said  bill  of  complaint  as  states, 
that  the  tract  of  land  so  alleged  to  have  been  granted  to  the  said  Jose* 
Reyes,  is  bounded  on  the  south  by  the  Sierra  Azul,  the  said  Defend- 
ants not  knowing  what  the  said  Complainants  mean  by  the  Sierra 
Azul,  cannot  answer  the  same  ;  but  that  if  by  the  Sierra  Azul  the 
Complainants  mean  that  range  of  hills  which  lies  immediately  along 
the  southern  border  of  the  valley  or  Canada  of  the  Capitancillos,  ex- 
tending from  the  eastern  boundary  of  the  said  tract  of  land  to  the 
Arroyo  de  los  Alamitos,  which  range  of  hills  so  lying  on  the  southern 
side  of  the  said  valley  and  the  low  Pueblo  hills  on  the  northern  side 
thereof,  do  in  fact  make  the  land  lying  between  them  a  valley  or 
Canada,  then  the  Defendants  admit  the  said  statement  of  the  Com- 
plainants bill  to  be  true  ;  but  if,  by  the  term  Sierra  Azul,  the  Com- 
plainants mean  any  other  range  of  hills,  then  the  Defendants  deny  the 
said  statement  to  be  true. 

§11.  And  these  Defendants  further  severally  answering  say,  they 
believe  it  to  be  true  that  the  said  Jose  Reyes  Berreyesa,  for  five  years 
prior  to  the  date  of  the  said  alleged  grant,  and  ever  after  until  the 
time  of  his  death,  with  his  family,  continued  to  be  in  the  public  posses- 
sion of  a  part  of  the  said  Canada  cle  los  Capitancillos,  being  a  part  of 
the  land  so  alleged  to  have  been  granted  to  him,  but  these  Defendants 
further  severally  say,  that  they,  or  any  or  either  of  them,  to  the  know- 
ledge or  belief  of  the  others  or  other  of  them,  know  not  and  have  never 
been  informed,  save  by  the  said  Complainants  bill,  and  cannot  set  forth 
as  to  their  belief  or  otherwise,  whether  the  said  possession  of  the  said 
Jose  Reyes  Berreyesa  was  a  lawful  or  peaceable  possession  ;  or  whether 
he  resided  on  the  said  land,  improving  or  cultivating  the  same,  as  re- 
quired by  the  provisions  of  the  colonization  laws. 

§12.  And  these  Defendants  further  severally  answering  say,  they 
deny  that  the  said  Jose  Reyes  Berreyesa  died  sometime  in  the  year 
1847,  and  they  also  deny  that  he  died  seized  or  possessed  of  the  said 
lands  in  the  said  bill  of  complaint  mentioned,  or  of  any  other  lands, 
under  or  by  virtue  of  the  grant  alleged  by  the  complainants  in  their 
said  bill  of  complaint,  to  have  been  made  to  him  by  Governor  Alva- 
rado  on  the  20th  day  of  August,  A.  D.  1842.  xVnd  this  Defendant, 
James  Alexander  Forbes,  further  severally  answering  saith,  and  these 
Defendants,  Robert  Walkinshaw  and  William  E.  Barron,  believe  it  to 
be  true,  that  the  said  Jose  Reyes  Berreyesa  died  in  the  month  of  June 
or  in  the  early  part  of  July,  A.  D.  1846,  and  that  if  by  virtue  of  any 
title  the  said  Jose*  Reyes  was  possessed  or  seized  at  the  time  of  his 
death,  of  any  part  of  the  tract  of  land  alleged  as  aforesaid  by  the  com- 
plainants to  have  been  granted  to  him  on  the  20  th  day  of  August, 
1842,  he  was  so  seized  and  possessed  by  virtue  of  the  title  exhibited 
as  aforesaid  by  the  complainant,  Zacharias,  his  widow,  to  Mr.  Alex- 


564 

ander  Forbes,  and  this  Defendant,  James  Alexander  Forbes,  in  the 
year  1848. 

§13.  And  these  defendants  further  severally  answering  say,  they 
believe  it  to  be  true  that  when  the  said  Jose'  Reyes  Berreyesa  depart- 
ed this  life,  he  left  surviving  him  his  said  widow,  Maria  Z.  Bernal  Ber- 
reyesa, and  his  lawful  children,  Jose  de  los  Santos,  Santiago,  Francisco, 
Fernando,  Ygnacio,  Jose,  Encarnacion,  Nemecio,  Maria  del^Carmen, 
Loretto,  and  Magdelena,  his  heirs  at  law. 

§14.  And  these  Defendants  further  severally  answering  say,  that 
they,  or  any,  or  either  of  them,  to  the  knowledge  or  belief  of  the  others 
or  other  of  them,  know  not,  and  have  not  been  informed  save  by  the 
said  complainants  bill,  and  cannot  set  forth  as  to  their  belief  or  other- 
wise, whether,  on  the  12th  day  of  July,  A.  D.  1850,  the  said  widow 
and  heirs  of  the  said  Jose'  Reyes  deceased,  demised  said  lands  and  all 
mines  therein,  with  the  appurtenances,  to  Richard  Roman,  Charles  V. 
Stuart,  and  James  Hepburn,  and  their  assigns,  for  the  term  of  twenty 
years,  thence  ensuing. 

§15.  And  these  Defendants  further  severally  answering  say,  that 
they,  or  any,  or  either  of  them,  to  the  knowledge  or  belief  of  the  others 
or  other  of  them,  know  not,  and  have  not  been  informed  save  by  the 
said  complainants  said  bill,  and  cannot  set  forth  as  to  their  belief  or 
otherwise — whether,  on  the  12th  day  of  September,  1855,  the  said 
lease-hold  Estate  in  the  said  lands  and  tenements  with  the  appurtenan- 
ces, aforesaid,  for  the  remainder  of  the  said  term,  was  duly  assigned, 
transferred,  and  conveyed  unto  the  said  James  Tobin,  in  trust,  for  the 
use  and  benefit  of  the  said  widow  and  heirs  at  law  of  the  said  Jose 
Reyes  Berreyesa,  deceased,  as  in  the  said  bill  of  complaint  specified, 
and  to  such  uses  as  they  may  appoint. 

§16.  And  these  Defendants  further  severally  answering,  say,  they 
believe  it  to  be  true,  that  the  said  widow  and  heirs  at  law  of  the  said 
Jose'  Reyes  Berreyesa,  filed  their  petition  before  the  United  States 
Board  of  Land  Commissioners,  appointed  to  ascertain  and  settle  the 
private  land  claims  in  California,  by  the  act  of  Congress  of  the  third 
of  March,  1851,  for  the  confirmation  of  their  right  or  title  to  a  certain 
tract  of  land  called  the  Rancho  de  San  Vicente,  Canada  de  los  Capi- 
tancillos,  but  these  defendants  say,  that  they,  or  any  or  either  of  them, 
to  the  knowledge  or  belief  of  the  others  or  other  of  them,  know  not, 
and  have  not  been  informed  save  by  the  said  Complainants  said  bill, 
what  are  the  boundaries  of  the  tract  of  land  claimed  in  the  said  peti- 
tion, nor  when  the  said  petition  was  filed,  nor  what  was  the  prayer  of 
the  said  petition,  nor  what  proceedings  were  had  thereon,  (except  the 
Decree  of  Confirmation),  and  as  to  those  matters  can  not  set  forth  as 
to  their  belief  or  otherwise ;  and  as  to  the  said  decree  of  the  said 
Board,  they  say,  they  deny  that  the  said  decree  confirmed  to  the  said 
widow  and  heirs  of  the  said  Jose'  Reyes  Berreyesa,  deceased,  the  tract 


565 

of  land  alleged  by  the  Complainants  in  their  said  bill  of  complaint,  to 
have  been  granted  to  the  said  Jose'  Reyes  by  Governor  Alvarado  on 
the  20th  day  of  August,  1842,  as  set  forth,  bounded  and  described  in 
the  said  bill  of  complaint ;  but  they  say  that  by  the  said  decree  of 
confirmation  there  was  confirmed  unto  the  said  widow  and  heirs  a  cer- 
tain tract  of  land,  being  the  same  tract  of  land  heretofore  in  this  an- 
swer described  by  these  Defendants,  as  the  tract  of  land  called  for  and 
described  and  intended  by  Governor  Alvarado  to  be  granted,  by  the 
title  or  document  of  concession,  dated  the  20th  of  August,  1842,  and 
in  the  23d  section  of  this  answer,  more  particularly  described  as  delin- 
eated on  Exhibit  "  X,"  which  document  of  concession  the  said  Jose" 
Reyes  refused  to  receive  as  aforesaid  ;  and  that  none  other  land  was 
by  the  said  decree  confirmed  unto  the  said  widow  and  heirs  of  the  said 
Jose"  Reyes.  And  these  Defendants  believe  it  to  be  true,  and  say, 
that  the  claim  which  was  confirmed  by  the  said  decree  of  the  said 
Board  stands  on  appeal,  and  that  the  said  decree  is  not  final. 

§17.  And  these  Defendants  further  severally  answering  say,  they 
believe  it  to  be  true  that  the  said  Nemecio  Berreyesa,  a  son  and 
one  of  the  heirs  of  the  said  Jose"  Reyes,  deceased,  departed  this  life  in 
or  about  the  month  of  July  or  August,  A.  D.  1854,  leaving  Benita 
Rodriguez,  his  widow,  and  Paula,  Filiberto,  Maria  and  Feliciana,  his 
children  and  heirs  at  law,  him  surviving,  and  that  the  said  children  are 
minors  ;  but  these  defendants,  or  any  or  either  of  them,  to  the  know- 
ledge or  belief  of  the  others  or  other  of  them,  know  not  and  have  not 
been  informed,  save  by  the  complainants'  said  bill,  and  cannot  set  forth 
on  their  belief  or  otherwise,  whether  the  said  Nemecio  died  testate  or 
intestate. 

§18.  And  this  Defendant,  Robert  Walkinshaw,  further  severally 
answering  saith,  and  these  Defendants,  James  Alexander  Forbes  and 
William  E.  Barron,  believe  it  to  be  true,  that  at  the  time  of  the  death 
of  the  said  Nemecio,  he  the  said  Nemecio,  had  no  right  or  title,  inter- 
est or  estate,  in  or  to  any  part  of  the  tract  of  land  mentioned  and  de- 
scribed in  the  said  complainants'  bill  of  complaint ;  and  that  the  said 
widow  Benita,  and  the  said  children  and  heirs  of  the  said  Nemecio 
have  not,  nor  have  any  of  them,  any  right,  title,  interest  or  estate  in 
and  to  the  said  tract  of  land,  derived  from  the  said  Nemecio,  by  inher- 
itance or  otherwise ;  and  farther,  that  this  Defendant,  Robert  Walkin- 
shaw is  now  owner  and  possessor,  and  has  so  been  from  the  month  of 
July,  L854,  of  all  the  title  and  estate  of  the  said  Nemecio,  deceased, 
in  and  to  the  whole  of  the  said  Rancho  of  San  Vicente,  Canada  de  los 
Capitancillos,  which  the  said  Nemecio  inherited  from  the  said  Jose" 
Reyes,  or  had  in  any  other  manner  acquired  before  the  5th  day  of 
April,  A.  D.  1853,  on  which  day  John  F.  Pyle  purchased  at  a  sale 
held  in  the  city  of  San  Jose',  by  the  Sheriff  of  Santa  Clara  County, 
under  and  by  virtue  of  an  execution  duly  issued  upon  a  judgment  ren- 


566 

dered  in  the  District  Court  of  the  Third  Judicial  District  of  the  State 
of  California,  within  and  for  the  said  County  of  Santa  Clara,  in  favor 
of  Nicolas  Valencia,  and  against  the  said  Nemecio  Berreyesa,  and 
duly  levied,  all  the  right,  title,  interest  and  estate  of  the  said  Nemecio 
Berreyesa,  in  and  to  the  said  Rancho  San  Yicente,  Canada  de  los  Cap- 
itancillos  ;  and  that  on  the  8th  of  October,  A.  D.  1853,  (the  said  prop 
erty  having  never  been  redeemed)  Joseph  W.  Johnson,  ex-sheriff  of 
the  said  County,  the  same  person  into  whose  hands  while  Sheriff  of  the 
said  county,  the  said  execution  was  first  placed,  and  who  made  the 
the  said  levy  and  sale,  conveyed  unto  the  said  John  F.  Pyle,  his  heirs 
and  assigns,  all  the  estate,  right,  title,  claim  and  interest  of  the  said 
Nemecio  Berreyesa,  in  and  to  the  land  aforesaid,  by  deed  duly  execu- 
ted, delivered,  acknowledged  and  recorded  ;  and  that  by  conveyances 
effectual  in  law  to  pass  the  same,  and  for  a  valuable  consideration  by 
him  given,  this  Defendant,  Walkinshaw,  became  and  is  now  the  owner 
and  possessor  of  all  the  title  and  interest  of  the  said  Nemecio  in  the 
said  lands  which  was  conveyed  to  the  said  Pyle  as  aforesaid,  and  has 
so  been  since  the  24th  of  July,  1854. 

§19.  And  these  defendants  further  severally  answering  say,  they 
deny  that  the  said  complainant,  Santiago  Berreyesa,  hath,  or  had  at 
the  time  of  filing  the  said  bill  of  complaint,  and  for  a  long  time  before, 
any  right,  title,  or  estate,  in  or  to  the  said  Rancho  San  Vicente,  Can- 
ada de  los  Capitancillos,  derived  by  inheritance  from  his  father  the  said 
Jose*  Reyes.  And  this  Defendant,  Robert  Walkinshaw,  for  himself 
further  answering  saith,  and  these  Defendants,  James  Alexander 
Forbes  and  William  E.  Barron,  believe  it  to  be  true,  that  on  the  fifth  day 
of  November,  1850,  this  Defendant  purchased  at  a  sale  held  in  the 
City  of  San  Jose*,  by  the  Sheriff  of  Santa  Clara  County,  under  and  by 
virtue  of  an  execution  issued  upon  a  judgment  rendered  in  the  District 
Court  of  the  Third  Judicial  District  of  the  State  of  California,  within 
and  for  the  said  County  of  Santa  Clara  in  favor  of  Martin  Flores,  and 
against  the  said  Santiago  Berreyesa,  and  duly  levied  all  the  right, 
title,  interest,  and  estate  of  the  said  Santiago  Berreyesa  in  and  to  the  said 
Rancho  San  Vicente,  Canada  de  los  Capitancillos,  and  thereupon 
John  Yontz,  the  Sheriff  of  said  county,  and  by  virtue  of  his  said  office, 
and  said  proceedings  thereunto  duly  authorized,  conveyed  to  this  De- 
fendant, Walkinshaw,  all  the  right,  title,,  and  interest  of  the  said  San- 
tiago Berreysa,  in  and  to  the  said  land,  the  said  interest  being  the  one 
undivided  twentieth  part  of  the  said  land,  by  deed  duly  executed,  de- 
livered, and  acknowledged  on  the  5th  of  November,  1850,  and  record- 
ed in  the  office  of  the  County  Recorder  the  next  day. 

§20.  And  this  Defendant,  Robert  Walkinshaw,  further  severally 
answering  saith,  and  these  Defendants,  James  Alexander  Forbes  and 
William  E.  Barron,  believe  it  to  be  true,  that  on  the  25th  day  of  Jan- 
nary,  1849,  he  lent  to  the  Complainant,  Fernando  Berreyesa,  and  to 


567 

his  said  brother  Nemecio,  then  living  but  now  dead,  the  sum  of  One 
Thousand  Dollars  to  be  paid  on  or  before  the  last  day  of  May  thence 
next  ensuing  ;  and  the  said  Fernando  and  Nemecio,  in  consideration 
of  said  loan,  did  by  public  act  in  writing,  and  to  secure  the  said  sum  of 
money  and  interest  to  the  said  Walkinshaw,  hypothecate  their  entire 
interest  in  the  said  Rancho  of  San  Vicente,  Canada  de  los  Capitan- 
cillos,  and  surrendered  possession  of  the  same  to  the  said  Walkinshaw 
as  a  further  security :  whereby  the  said  Walkinshaw  became  entitled 
to  the  possession  of  the  said  Rancho,  in  the  manner  and  to  the  extent 
that  the  said  Nemecio  and  Fernando  had  enjoyed  the  same,  and  en- 
tered into  possessien  thereof,  under  and  by  virtue  of  the  said  hypothe- 
cation ;  that  thereafter  when  the  contract  of  sale  between  Theodore 
Shillaber  and  certain  of  the  Complainants,  more  fully  hereinafter  de- 
scribed, was  made,  the  said  Walkinshaw  being  interested  with  the  said 
Shillaber  in  the  said  contract,  this  Defendant  is  informed  and  believes 
that  the  original  document  of  the  said  hypothecation  was  surrendered 
by  an  agent  of  his,  Gamiz  y  Alcalde,  now  dead,  to  the  said  Nemecio 
and  Fernando,  in  acknowledment  of  the  payment  of  the  debt,  for  the 
security  of  whi-  h  it  was  given,  and  by  them  taken  as  part  of  the  con- 
sideration they  were  to  receive  from  the  said  Shillaber,  on  account  of 
the  said  contract,  to  the  extent  of  the  debt  and  interest  by  the  said  in- 
strument secured ;  and  that  the  said  debt  so  contracted  by  the  said 
Fernando  and  Nemecio,  to  this  Defendant  Walkinshaw,  unless  it  was 
surrendered  by  the  said  Walkinshaw's  agent  to  Fernando  and  Nemecio 
as  aforesaid,  and  by  them  received  and  accepted  as  part  of  the  money 
which  constituted  the  consideration  of  the  contract  with  the  said  Shil- 
laber, has  never  nor  has  any  part  thereof,  been  paid  to  the  said  Walk- 
inshaw by  the  said  Nemecio  and  Fernando  or  either  of  them,  or  in  any 
manner  satisfied,  nor  has  the  right  of  the  said  Walkinshaw  to  the  pos- 
session of  their  part  and  interest  in  the  said  Rancho,  by  virtue  of  said 
hypothecation,  ever  been  taken  from  or  surrendered  by  him. 

§21.  And  the  said  Defendants  further  severally  answering  say, 
that  they  have  caused  at  great  expense  a  very  minute  and  accurate 
survey,  both  lineal  and  topographical,  to  be  made  of  the  said  tract  of 
land  granted  as  aforesaid  to  the  said  Justo  Larios  on  the  first  day  of 
August,  A.  D.  1842,  and  of  the  said  tract  of  land  alleged  by  the  Com- 
plainants in  their  said  bill  of  complaint,  to  have  been  granted  by  the 
said  Governor  Alvarado  to  the  said  Jose'  Reyes  Berreyesa,  on  the  20th 
day  of  August,  1.842,  and  of  the  country  adjacent  to  the  said  Ranchos  ; 
which  survey  was  made  by  competent  and  skilful  surveyors,  and  is  a 
correct  and  true  survey  of  the  tract  of  land  of  which  it  purports  to  be 
made  ;  and  that  they  have  further  caused  a  map  of  the  said  survey  to 
be  made  and  lithographed,  which  map  is  a  correct  representation  of 
the  said  survey  in  all  respects,  and  truly  describes  and  delineates  the 
said  country  and  the  boundaries  of  the  said  Ranchos  as  they  are  given 


568 

and  described  in  the  said  grant  to  Justo  Larios,  and  in  the  said  alleged 
grant  to  Jose'  Reyes  Berreyesa  ;  and  the  said  Defendants  herewith  file 
a  copy  of  the  said  map,  marked  Exhibit  "  X,"  which  they  pray  may 
be  considered  part  of  this  their  answer. 

§22.  And  the  Defendants  further  severally  answering  say,  that 
the  tract  of  land  on  the  said  Exhibit,  "  X  "  delineated  as  follows : 
Beginning  at  Station  0,  at  the  junotion  of  the  Arroyos  Seco  and  Ala- 
mitos,  and  thence  down  the  stream,  which,  below  said  junction,  is 
named  on  said  Map,  Arroyo  de  los  Capitancillos,  to  its  junction  with 
another  Arroyo  called  Arroyo  Seco  ;  thence  up  said  last  named  Arroyo 
to  Station  No.  44 ;  thence  in  straight  lines  from  Station  to  Station 
consecutively  to  Station  No.  64 ;  thence  in  a  straight  line  to  the  start- 
ing point,  (this  last  line  closing  the  survey,  and  being  drawn  from  the 
junction  of  the  said  Arroyos  Seco  and  Alamitos  southerly  along  the 
Eastern  base  of  the  hill  in  the  middle  of  the  Canada  to  the  Sierra,) 
and  containing  one  square  league,  less  about  800  acres,  is  a  true  and 
correct  survey  of  the  Rancho  granted  as  aforesaid  to  the  said  Justo 
Larios,  if  the  Arroyo  de  los  Capitancillos,  and  not  the  low  hills  lying 
to  the  north  thereof,  is  to  be  taken  as  the  northern  boundary  of  the 
said  Rancho  ;  and  that  if  the  said  low  hills  are  to  be  taken  for  such 
northern  boundary,  it  would  make  no  difference  whatever  in  said 
southern  boundary,  meaning  from  Station  No.  44  to  Station  No.  64  ; 
and  no  difference  in  the  direction  of  the  eastern  boundary  line,  mean- 
ing the  line  drawn  from  the  junction  of  the  Arroyos  Seco  and  Alamitos, 
southerly  by  the  eastern  base  of  the  hill  in  the  middle  of  the  Canada 
to  the  Sierra ;  and  no  difference  in  the  western  boundary  line  of  the 
said  Rancho,  except  to  extend  it  from  the  junction  of  the  Arroyos  Seco 
and  Capitancillos  at  Station  No.  24,  to  the  foot  of  said  low  Pueblo 
hills.  And  these  Defendants  further  say,  that  the  title  of  the  said 
Justo  Larios,  does  not  name  any  northern  boundary  to  the  land  granted, 
but  that  the  Map  which  accompanies  his  title  lays  down  the  Pueblo 
Hills,  on  the  north  of  the  said  Arroyo  de  los  Capitancillos.  And  these 
Defendants  say,  that  the  land  included  in  the  said  delineation  of  the 
said  Rancho  of  Justo  Larios,  with  the  additional  strip  of  land  added  to 
the  southern  boundary  thereof  described  on  Exhibit  X,  as  contained 
between  that  portion  of  the  southern  boundary  line,  which  extends 
from  Station  No.  47,  at  the  point  K,  thence  along  the  Stations  conse- 
cutively to  Station  No.  64,  and  from  Station  No.  64  to  the  point  I, 
and  from  I  to  J,  and  from  J  to  K,  would  contain  one  square  league  of 
land,  the  quantity  granted  as  aforesaid  to  the  said  Justo  Larios,  and 
would  include  a  portion  of  the  Sierra,  which,  by  the  title  and  the  ac- 
companying Map  of  the  said  Justo  Larios,  is  made  the  southern 
boundary  of  his  Rancho. 

§23.     And  these  Defendants  further  severally  answering  say,  that 
the  tract  of  land  mentioned  and  intended  to  be  conveyed  in  the  pre- 


569 

tended  grant  of  the  20th  August,  1842,  alleged  by  the  complainants 
to  have  been  made  by  Governor  Alvarado  to  the  said  Jose  Reyes  is 
truly  delineated  on  said  exhibit,  as  follows,  (except  that  the  following 
delineation  take3  in  a  portion  of  the  Sierra,  which  by  the  said  alleged 
grant  is  made  the  southern  boundary  of  said  Rancho,  and  includes  a 
greater  quantity  of  land  than  one  square  league  by  five  hundred  and 
eleven  acres,)  that  is  to  say  :  Beginning  at  station  0  at  the  junction 
of  the  said  Arroyos  Seco  and  Alamitos  ;  thence  in  an  easterly  direc- 
tion a  little  inclining  to  the  south,  along  the  base  of  the  Pueblo  Hills, 
in  straight  lines  from  station  to  station  as  they  are  consecutively  num- 
bered, to  station  No.  10 ;  thence  in  a  southerly  direction  to  a  point 
marked  L ;  thence  in  a  westerly  direction  to  the  point  of  intersection 
of  the  southern  and  eastern  boundary  lines  of  the  said  Rancho  of  Justo 
Larios,  as  surveyed  for  one  square  league,  at  the  point  marked  I ; 
thence  in  a  straight  line  to  the  beginning  ;  and  that  the  tract  of  land 
so  delineated  contains  the  whole  of  that  part  of  the  Canada  or  valley  of 
the  Capitancillos  which  is  described  in  the  said  alleged  grant  to  the 
said  Jose'  Reyes,  and  moreover  embraces  a  portion  of  the  Sierra  which 
constitutes  his  southern  boundary,  and  contains  more  than  one  square 
league  of  land,  by  so  much  as  is  contained  in  the  triangular  area 
marked  on  the  said  exhibit  ILM,  that  is  to  say,  five  hundred  and 
eleven  acres,  and  they  deny  that  any  land  whatsoever  outside  of  the 
limits  above  delineated  was  mentioned,  or  described,  or  conveyed,  or 
intended  to  be  conveyed  to  the  said  Jose  Reyes,  by  the  said  alleged 
grant  of  the  20th  August,  A.  D.  1842. 

§24.  And  these  Defendants  further  severally  answering  say,  that 
in  the  said  alleged  grant  of  the  20th  August,  1842,  to  the  said  Jose' 
Reyes,  only  a  part  of  the  valley  of  the  Capitancillos,  extending  from 
the  eastern  boundary  line  of  Justo  Larios  to  the  head  of  the  valley  in 
the  Laurel  Hills,  a  distance  of  two  leagues,  and  none  of  the  adjacent 
hills,  was  mentioned  or  intended  to  be  granted  ;  and  that  the  said 
alleged  grant  calls  for  an  area  of  one  square  league  ;  and  they  further 
say  that  the  petition  of  the  said  Jose'  Reyes  Berreyesa  to  the  Governor 
of  California,  dated  June  2d,  1842,  which  preceded  the  said  alleged 
grant,  asked  for  the  said  narrow  Canada  and  the  adjacent  hills,  and 
described  the  area  of  the  tract  solicited  to  be  two  square  leagues. 

§25.  And  these  Defendants  further  severally  answering  say,  they 
deny  that  the  tract  of  land  mentioned  and  described  in  the  said  grant 
alleged  as  aforesaid  by  the  said  Complainants  in  their  said  bill  of  com- 
plaint to  have  been  made  to  the  said  Jose'  Reyes  by  Governor  Alva- 
rado on  the  20th  day  of  August,  1842,  contains  any  mines  of  cinnabar 
which  have  ever  been  discovered  or  worked ;  that  they  believe  there- 
is  a  quarry  of  limestone  on  the  said  tract  of  land  in  the  hill  nearly 
opposite  and  to  the  south  of  the  word  "  de"  in  the  name  "  Rancho  de 
Berreyesa"  as  printed  on  said  Exhibit  "  X,"  but  that  they,  nor  any 
44 


570 

of  them,  do  not  know  of  any  other  quarry  of  limestone  on  the  said 
tract  of  land ;  that  they  believe  there  was  formerly  a  large  number  of 
growing  trees  on  the  said  tract  of  land,  but  they  further  severally  say, 
that  they  or  any  or  either  of  them,  to  the  knowledge  or  belief  of  the 
others  or  other  of  them,  have  never  been  informed  save  by  the  said 
Complainants  bill,  and  cannot  set  forth  as  to  their  belief  or  otherwise, 
whether  the  principal  value  of  said  tract  of  land  consisted  in  the  said 
alleged  mines  of  cinnabar  or  quarries  of  limestone  and  growing  trees. 

§26.  And  these  Defendants  further  severally  answering  say,  they 
deny  that  some  time  in  the  year  1849,  or  at  any  other  time,  they,  or 
either  or  any  of  them,  by  themselves  or  their,  or  any  of  their  agents  or 
abettors,  unlawfully  or  wrongfully  entered  into  and  upon  any  lands  or 
premises  belonging  to  the  complainants,  or  any  or  either  of  them  ;  and 
they  particularly  deny  that  they,  or  either  or  any  of  them,  themselves 
or  by  their  or  any  of  their  agents  or  abettors,  in  the  year  1849,  or  at 
any  other  time,  unlawfully  and  wrongfully  entered  into  or  upon  the 
premises,  which  are  mentioned  and  described  in  the  pretended  grant, 
alleged  by  the  said  complainants  in  their  said  bill  of  complaint  to  have 
been  made  by  Governor  Alvarado  to  the  said  Jose  Reyes  on  the  20th 
August,  A.  I).  1842  ;  and  they  deny  that  since  the  year  1849,  or  at 
any  other  time,  they,  or  any  or  either  of  them,  have  ever  wrongfully 
taken  possession  of  all  or  of  any  part  of  the  premises  mentioned  and 
described  and  intended  to  be  conveyed  in  the  said  pretended  grant  to 
said  Jose*  Reyes,  which  lies  west  of  the  Arroyo  de  los  Alamitos, 
together  with  all  or  any  part  of  the  said  tract  of  land  which  lies  east 
of  and  along  said  Arroyo  of  four  hundred  yards  in  width.  And  they 
further  severally  deny  that  they,  or  any  or  either  of  them,  have 
wrongfully  cut  down  and  destroyed  about  five  thousand  or  any  other 
number  of  the  growing  trees  upon  said  tract  of  land,  of  the  average 
value  of  twenty  dollars,  or  of  any  other  value,  or  of  no  value  ;  and  they 
deny  that  they,  or  any  or  either  of  them,  have  opened  quarries  on  the 
said  tract  of  land,  and  received  therefrom  large  quantities  of  lime,  or 
any  quantity  of  lime,  of  the  value  of  five  thousand  dollars,  or  of  any 
other  value,  or  of  no  value  ;  and  they  deny  that  they,  or  any  or  either 
of  them,  have  opened  in  the  said  tract  of  land  extensive  mines  of  cin- 
nabar, or  any  other  mines  of  cinnabar  ;  and  they  deny  that  they,  or 
any  or  either  of  them,  have  removed  from  the  said  tract  of  land  large 
or  other  quantities  of  quicksilver,  of  the  aggregate  value  of  five  millions 
of  dollars,  or  of  any  other  value,  or  of  no  value. 

§27.  And  these  Defendants  further  severally  answering  say,  it  is 
true  that  one  James  Tobin,  whom  they  believe  to  be  the  complainant 
of  that  name,  in  the  said  bill  of  complaint  named,  did,  on  the  15th  day 
of  September,  A.  D.  1855,  and  before  the  filing  of  the  bill  of  complaint 
in  this  cause,  file  his  declaration  in  ejectment  in  this  honorable  Court 
on  the  law  side  thereof,  for  the  recovery  from  these  Defendants  of  the 


571 

tract  of  land  in  the  said  declaration  described,  which  description  is  in 
the  same  words,  which  the  said  complainants  in  their  said  bill  have 
falsely  and  fraudulently  used  to  describe  the  tract  of  land  which  they 
pretend  as  aforesaid  was  granted  by  Governor  Alvarado  to  the  said 
Jose  Reyes  on  the  20th  day  of  August,  1842 ;  and  that  on  the  filing 
of  said  declaration,  summons  issued  thereon  against  the  Defendants  in 
said  declaration  named  ;  and  they  further  say,  that  they  have  answered 
the  said  declaration,  denying  that  the  plaintiff  hath  any  title  to  the 
land  therein  mentioned,  and  further  denying  each  and  every  allegation 
therein  contained ;  and  that  the  said  suit  in  ejectment  is  now  at  issue. 

§28.  And  these  Defendants  further  severally  answering  say,  they 
deny  the  combination  and  confederacy  in  the  12th  Section  of  the  said 
bill  of  complaint  charged  against  them ;  and  they  particularly  deny 
that  combining  and  confederating  for  the  purpose  of  working  any  mine 
whatsoever,  and  of  disposing  of  the  profits  thereof  to  their  own  use, 
they  continue  to  commit,  or  have  ever  committed  any  acts  of  waste  or 
trespass  upon  any  lands  belonging  to  the  said  complainants  or  to  any, 
or  to  any  one  of  them,  either  in  the  cutting  down  and  burning  of  the 
timber  thereon ;  or  in  the  sinking  of  any  mine  therein ;  or  in  the 
taking  from  such  a  mine  large,  or  other  quantities  of  cinnabar  ;  or  in 
the  reducing  of  the  same  to  quicksilver  at  the  average  rate  of  five 
thousand  pounds  daily,  or  at  any  other  rate  ;  as  the  said  complainants 
in  their  said  bill  of  complaint  hi  ve  charged. 

§29.  And  these  defendants  further  severally  answering  say,  that 
on  or  a  few  days  before  the  22d  day  of  November,  A.  D.  1845,  An- 
dres Castillero,  a  Mexican  by  birth,  domiciled  in  the  Department  of 
California,  discovered  a  mine  in  what  is  now  the  County  of  Santa 
Clara,  in  the  State  of  California,  and  Districts  aforesaid,  and  what  was 
then  the  Jurisdiction  of  San  Jose*  Guadalupe,  2d  District  of  the  said 
Department ;  that  there  being  no  Mining  Deputation,  or  Mining  Dis- 
trict in  the  said  Department,  and  no  Judge  of  First  Instance  in  the  2d 
District  of  said  Department  at  that  time,  Andres  Castillero  presented 
himself  on  the  22d  November,  A.  D.  1845,  before  the  1st  Alcalde  of 
the  Jurisdiction  of  San  Jose"  Guadalupe,  and  in  writing  represented 
the  fact  of  said  discovery,  and  the  names  of  his  associates,  who  were 
four,  not  counting  the  said  discoverer,  and  all  other  matters  and  things 
relative  to  the  said  discovery,  required  by  the  ordinances  on  that  sub- 
ject ;  that  the  said  Castillero,  having  been  at  first  mistaken  in  regard 
to  the  nature  of  the  minerals  so  discovered,  did  afterwards,  to  wit,  on 
the  3d  day  of  December,  A.  D.  1845,  make  known  in  writing  to  the 
said  First  Alcalde,  the  true  character  of  the  said  minerals  so  discov- 
ered, and  caused  the  said  representation  to  be  added  to  the  registry  in 
the  office  of  the  said  First  Alcalde,  of  the  said  Castillero's  first  repre- 
sentation concerning  the  same :  that  the  proper  notices  of  the  registry 
of  said  discovery  having  been  posted  up  as  required  by  law,  and  a  pit 


572 

(pozo)  opened  of  the  dimensions  required  by  law,  Antonio  Maria  Pico, 
Alcalde  of  first  nomination  as  aforesaid,  accompanied  by  two  witnesses, 
for  the  want  of  a  Notary  Public,  did  within  ninety  days  from  the  regis- 
try of  said  discovery,  to  wit,  on  the  30th  December,  1845,  put  the 
said  Andres  Castillero  in  the  possession  of  the  said  mine,  and  of  a 
tract  of  land  measured  three  thousand  varas  to  all  points  from  the 
mine,  and  did  grant  to  the  said  Castillero  the  said  tract  of  land,  being 
a  tract  of  land  in  a  square  form,  with  its  opposite  sides  lying  north  and 
south,  and  east  and  west,  respectively.  And  these  Defendants  further 
severally  answering  say,  that  although  public  notices  of  the  registry  of 
the  discovery  of  the  said  mine  were  immediately,  on  such  registry 
being  made  as  aforesaid,  posted  up  in  conspicuous  public  places  as  re- 
quired by  the  laws  and  ordinances  of  Mexico  on  that  subject,  no  person 
appeared  before  the  said  Alcalde  pretending  to  have  right  to  the  said 
discovery  against  the  said  Andres  Castillero,  within  ninety  days  from 
the  date  of  the  discovery,  or  within  ninety  days  from  the  said  registry 
thereof,  or  within  ninety  days  from  the  posting  up  of  such  public 
notices,  or  within  any  period  determined  by  the  laws  and  ordinances, 
within  which  a  person  claiming  an  adverse  right  might  contest  the  right 
of  the  discoverer  to  the  said  mine  and  mining  possession.  And  these 
Defendants  further  say  that  the  name  of  the  mine  so  discovered  and 
registered,  and  granted,  was  at  first,"  The  Mine  of  Santa  Clara,"  and 
that  it  was  about  the  year  1847  or  1848,  changed  to  the  "  Mine  of 
New  Almaden,"  which  name  said  mine  has  ever  since  borne. 

§30.  And  these  Defendants  further  severally  answering  say,  that 
afterwards,  to  wit,  on  the  twelfth  day  of  May,  A.  D.  1846,  in  the  city 
of  Mexico,  whither  the  affairs  of  the  said  mine  had  taken  its  said  dis- 
coverer, he,  the  said  Andres  Castillero,  entered  into  negotiations  with 
the  Mexican  Government  to  procure  funds  sufficient  to  work  the  said 
mine  on  a  larger  scale  than  his  own  individual  means,  or  those  of  his 
partners  would  admit  of,  and  having  presented  his  proposals  to  the 
Junta  de  Fomento  y  Administracion  de  Mineria,  the  highest  mining 
tribunal  in  Mexico,  and  especially  charged  by  law  with  the  duty  of 
devising  and  proposing  rewards  to  the  discoverers  of  mines  of  quick- 
silver, the  said  Junta  did  favorably  report  to  the  President  of  Mexico 
upon  all  the  said  proposals,  and  the  President  of  Mexico,  on  the  twen- 
tieth day  of  May,  A.  D.  1846,  approved  the  contract  as  proposed  by 
the  said  Junta,  and  that  thereby  a  contract  was  concluded  b:tween 
the  Mexican  Government  and  the  said  Castillero,  by  which  the  Gov- 
ernment agreed  to  advance  the  sum  of  five  thousand  dollars,  and  a 
number  of  iron  flasks  or  retorts,  to  the  said  Castillero,  and  to  be  reim- 
bursed said  expenditures  in  a  certain  quantity  of  quicksilver,  the  first 
yielded  by  the  mine,  to  be  delivered  to  the  said  Government  by  the 
said  Castillero,  at  the  Port  of  Mazatlan. 

§31.     And  these  Defendants  further  severally  answering  say,  that 


573 

the  Mexican  authorities  being  highly  pleased  with  the  brilliant  discov- 
ery so  made  by  the  said  Andres  Castillero,  of  an  article  so  important 
to  a  country  in  the  situation  of  Mexico,  whose  principal  wealth  consists 
in  ores  of  gold  and  silver,  the  President  of  Mexico,  upon  the  petition 
of  the  said  Andres  Castillero,  and  in  reward  of  that  discovery,  was 
pleased  to  grant  him,  by  title  of  colonization,  a  tract  of  land  having  an 
area  equal  to  two  square  leagues,  in  a  square  form,  the  opposite  sides 
of  which  lay  north  and  south,  and  east  and  west,  respectively,  in  the 
middle  of  which  was  situated  the  mouth  of  said  mine  ;  and  by  order  of 
the  23d  May,  1846,  issued  from  the  Ministry  of  Relations,  reciting  the 
said  concession  so  made  to  the  said  Castillero,  directed  the  Governor 
or  Political  Chief  of  the  said  Department  to  put  Castillero  into  the  pos- 
session of  said  two  square  leagues  of  land.  And  the  said  order  was 
delivered  to  the  said  Castillero,  to  serve  him  as  the  evidence  of  his  title, 
and  as  the  authority  under  which  the  Governor  of  the  said  Department 
should  proceed  to  put  him  in  possession  of  the  said  land. 

§32.  And  these  Defendants  further  severally  answering  say,  that 
the  position  of  the  mine  so  discovered  by  the  said  Andres  Castillero  is 
correctly  designated  on  the  said  Exhibit  X,  by  the  black  spot  near  the 
words  "  New  Almaden  Mine,"  and  that  the  square  area  ABCD,  laid 
down  on  the  said  exhibit,  truly  delineates  the  tract  of  land,  of  the  su- 
perficial extent  of  two  square  leagues,  granted  as  aforesaid  by  the 
President  of  Mexico  to  the  said  Andres  Castillero  ;  and  that  the  square 
area  marked  on  the  said  exhibit  EFGH,  truly  delineates  the  tract  of 
land  measured  three  thousand  varas  to  all  the  points  from  the  mine, 
which  by  the  said  Alcalde  Antonio  Maria  Pico  was  designated  as  the 
mining  possession  incident  and  appurtenant  to  the  said  mine,  and 
granted  as  aforesaid  to  the  said  Castillero,  and  of  which  the  said  Cas- 
tillero was  put  into  possession  as  aforesaid  by  the  said  Antonio  Maria 
Pico,  with  two  assisting  witnesses. 

§33.  And  these  Defendants  further  severally  answering  say,  they 
are  informed  and  believe,  and  so  charge  the  truth  to  be,  that  when 
Andres  Castillero  discovered  the  said  mine,  and  caused  a  registry  of 
his  discovery  to  be  made,  the  said  Jose'  Reyes  Berreyesa,  who  was  then 
living,  falsely  represented  to  the  said  Castillero  that  the  newly  discov- 
ered mine  was  on  his  land,  that  his  grant  or  concession  of  the  said  land 
being  the  said  Rancho  of  San  Vicente,  in  the  Canada  de  los  Capitan- 
cillos,  called  for  two  square  leagues,  and  was  derived  from  the  Mexi- 
can Government,  by  document  of  title  made  and  issued  on  the  20th 
day  of  November,  A.  D.  1844,  signed  by  Manuel  Micheltorena,  at 
that  time  Governor  of  the  Department  of  the  Californias,  and  by  Man- 
uel Jimeno,  Secretary  of  State  in  the  said  Department,  and  noted  in 
the  proper  book  on  page  13  ;  and  that  the  said  Jose*  Reyes  did  fraud- 
ulently and  with  intent  to  deceive  the  said  Castillero,  make  with  his 
own  hand  a  pretended  copy  of  the  said  original  grant,  and  exhibited  it 


574 

to  the  said  Castillero,  and  delivered  it  to  him,  and  represented  to  the 
said  Castillero  that  it  was  a  true  copy  of  his  said  grant ;  and  that  in 
the  said  pretended  copy  there  was  a  material  and  important  variation 
from  the  original  in  this,  that  whereas  the  said  original  grant  called  for 
and  intended  to  grant  only  one  square  league,  and  expressly  and  ab- 
solutely confined  the  said  Jose'  Reyes  to  that  quantity  of  land,  the  said 
pretended  false  copy  made  it  to  appear  that  the  quantity  granted  was 
two  square  leagues,  and  positively  and  expressly  names  and  calls  for 
that  quantity  ;  that  the  said  Jos6  Reyes  was  guilty  of  this  gross  deceit 
and  fraud  for  the  purpose  of  inducing  the  said  Castillero  to  believe 
and  declare  that  the  mine  so  discovered  was  situated  on  the  land  of 
the  said  Jose  Reyes ;  and  the  said  Castillero,  believing  the  said  false 
statements  of  the  said  Jose  Reyes,  and  further  supposing  that  the  di- 
rection of  the  western  boundary  line  of  the  said  Rancho  of  San  Vicente 
was  such  as  to  throw  the  newly  discovered  mine  on  the  Berreyesa  side 
thereof,  in  which  respect  the  said  Castillero  was  mistaken,  as  he  might 
well  be,  in  view  of  the  positive  declaration  of  the  said  Jose  Reyes,  to 
the  effect  that  the  said  mine  was  on  his  land,  and  considering  further 
the  want  of  all  the  means  by  which  the  location  of  said  line  might  at 
that  day  be  accurately  determined,  did  in  his  representation  to  the  Al- 
calde state  that  the  Mine  which  he  had  discovered  was  situated  on  the 
Rancho  of  the  said  Jose"  Reyes  Berreyesa  ;  that  the  said  Andres  Cas- 
tillero left  California  in  the  early  part  of  the  year  1846,  in  the  month  of 
March,  and  took  with  him  to  Mexico  the  said  pretended  copy  of  the 
concession  made  to  the  said  Jose  Reyes  by  the  said  Governor  Michel- 
torena,  and  was  there  for  the  first  time  informed,  and  obtained  the 
information,  from  the  said  Micheltorena,  that  the  quantity  of  land 
granted  by  him  as  Governor  of  the  Department  of  the  Californias,  to 
the  aforesaid  Jose'  Reyes  Berreyesa,  in  the  aforesaid  concession  of  the 
Rancho  of  San  Vicente,  in  the  Canada  of  the  Capitancillos,  was  one 
square  league  and  no  more,  and  that  the  said  pretended  copy  of  the 
said  original  document  of  concession  contained  a  falsehood,  in  making 
it  to  appear  that  two  square  leagues  were  thereby  gramted  ;  that  the 
said  Castillero,  before  he  left  California  as  aforesaid,  had  been  inform- 
ed by  some  persons  who  lived  in  the  neighborhood  of  the  said  Rancho 
of  Berreyesa,  that  he  had  made  a  mistake  in  representing  the  mine  to 
be  on  the  land  of  the  said  Berreyesa,  and  that  it  was  not  on  his  land ; 
that  in  the  year  1847,  in  the  month  of  January,  the  said  Castillero 
sent  inclosed  in  a  letter  to  the  said  Alexander  Forbes,  the  said  pre- 
tended false  copy,  so  given  as  aforesaid  by  the  said  Jose  Reyes  to  the 
said  Castillero,  and  stated  in  the  said  letter  that  the  same  was  given  to 
him  by  the  said  Jose  Reyes,  and  contained  a  falsehood  in  regard  to  the 
quantity  of  land  granted,  in  that  it  called  for  two  square  leagues  in- 
stead of  one,  and  that  his  colindantes  had  told  him  before  he  left  Cali- 
fornia that  his  Mine  was  not  on  the  land  of  the  said  Berreyesa  ;  and  fin- 


575 

ally,  that  the  said  Castillero  having  so  learned  from  persons  in  Califor- 
nia the  mistake  he  committed  in  representing  the  newly  discovered 
Mine,  now  called  the  Mine  of  New  Almaden,  to  be  situated  in  the 
lands  of  the  said  Jose  Reyes,  and  having  also  learned  from  Michelto- 
rena  the  fraud  that  had  been  practiced  on  him  by  the  said  Jose  Reyes, 
in  making  for  him  in  his  (the  said  Jose  Reyes)  own  handwriting,  and 
in  delivering  to  him  the  said  pretended  and  false  copy  of  his  said  conces- 
sion and  declaring  it  to  be  a  true  copy  of  the  same,  regarding  the  lands 
adjoining  on  all  sides  the  said  Mine  of  New  Almaden  as  public  lands 
(terrenos  valdios),  did  petition  the  President  of  Mexico  for  a  grant  of 
two  square  leagues  by  title  of  colonization,  to  be  located  on  his  mining 
possession,  and  obtained  a  grant  for  the  same  from  the  President  of 
Mexico. 

§34.  And  this  Defendant,  Robert  Walkinshaw,  further  answering 
saith,  and  these  Defendants  James  A.  Forbes  and  William  E.  Barron 
believe  it  to  be  true,  that  some  time  in  the  month  of  October,  A.  D. 
1849,  the  complainants  Zacharias,  widow  of  the  said  Jose"  Reyes,  and 
Nemecio,  and  Ygnacio,  and  Carmen,  and  Loretto,  and  Jose*  de  los  San- 
tos, made  and  entered  into  a  contract  of  sale  with  Theodore  Shillaber, 
of  the  city  of  San  Francisco,  whereby  they  sold  to  the  said  Shillaber 
all  their  right,  title,  and  estate  in  and  to  the  following  tract  of  land, 
bounded  as  follows,  that  is  to  say  :  On  the  west  by  the  hills  mentioned 
in  the  title  of  concession,  and  the  Ranch  de  los  Capitancillos,  (meaning 
the  said  Rancho  of  Justo  Larios,)  on  the  east  and  north  by  the  Arroyo 
de  los  Alamitos,  as  far  as  an  oak  tree  marked  with  a  cross  at  the  ford 
of  the  stream,  (which  point  is  designated  on  Exhibit  X  by  the  letter 
"  U,")  and  from  this  oak  along  the  line  of  the  hills  as  far  as  the  Pi- 
cacho  of  Chual ;  and  on  the  south  by  the  Sierra  Azul  or  Blue  Mountains, 
it  being  the  intention  of  the  said  vendors  and  the  said  Shillaber,  that  the 
above  described  tract  of  land  would  comprehend  the  mine  of  New  Alma- 
den, with  its  "  Hacienda  de  beneficio"  ;  that  the  price  which  the  said 
Shillaber  agreed  to  pay  for  the  entire  interests  of  the  said  widow,  and  all 
the  heirs  of  the  said  Jose  Reyes  in  and  to  the  said  tract  of  land,  was 
the  sum  of  twenty  thousand  dollars,  or  at  that  rate,  to  the  said  widow 
and  each  heir,  according  to  their  respective  interests  and  shares  in  and 
of  the  same.  That  the  said  contract  was  reduced  to  writing  and  signed 
by  the  said  Zacharias,  widow  of  the  said  Jose"  Reyes,  by  her  son  the 
said  Ygnacio,  who  was  thereunto  duly  authorized,  and  who  also  signed 
for  himself ;  and  by  the  said  Loretto,  by  her  brother  the  said  Nemecio, 
who  was  thereunto  duly  authorized,  and  who  also  signed  for  himself; 
and  by  the  said  Carmen  by  her  husband  Lorenzo  Pineda,  who  was 
thereunto  duly  authorized  ;  and  by  the  said  Jose  Encarnacion,  and  the 
said  Magdalena  by  the  said  Ygnacio  who  was  thereunto  duly  author- 
ized ;  and  that  the  said  contract  of  sale  was  agreed  to  and  made  by 
the  said  widow  Zacharias,  both  for  herself  and  her  son  the  said  Jose"  de 


576  # 

los  Santos,  one  of  the  Complainants,  who  duly  authorized  his  mother  to 
act  for  him  in  the  premises  ;  that  the  written  contract  of  sale,  signed 
as  aforesaid,  was  delivered  by  the  vendors  to  the  said  Shillaber,  he 
paying  them  at  the  same  time  the  sum  of  five  hundred  dollars  in  cash, 
and  agreeing  to  start  from  San  Jose'  immediately,  for  San  Francisco, 
and  send  back  the  balance  of  the  purchase  money,  that  is  to  say,  the 
sum  of  nineteen  thousand  and  five  hundred  dollars,  to  be  paid  to  those 
who  had  signed,  according  to  their  respective  shares  and  interests,  to 
which  arrangement  the  said  vendors  readily  assented  ;  that  thereupon 
the  said  Shillaber  departed  immediately  for  San  Francisco,  and  as  soon 
as  he  arrived  there  sent  a  messenger  to  San  Jose'  with  the  sum  of 
nineteen  thousand  five  hundred  dollars,  to  be  left  with  Josiah  Belden, 
his  agent,  who  had  instructions  to  pay  it  on  the  said  contract  in  the 
manner  aforesaid ;  that  between  the  time  of  the  said  Shillaber' s  de- 
parture from  San  Jose*  and  the  arrival  at  the  last  named  place  of  the 
said  money,  an  interval  of  perhaps  as  much  as  three  days,  the  said 
widow  and  heirs,  vendors  as  aforesaid,  under  the  expectation  and 
promise  of  receiving  a  larger  price  from  another  person,  with  whom, 
after  the  said  contract  of  sale  was  made  with  the  said  Shillaber,  they 
had  been  in  treaty  for  the  sale  of  the  said  land,  refused  to  receive  the 
money  which  he  had  sent  in  compliance  with  his  said  contract,  to  be 
paid  to  the  said  widow  and  the  other  Complainants,  vendors  ;  that  the 
sum  of  nineteen  thousand  five  hundred  dollars  being  then  deposited 
with  Josiah  Belden,  at  his  store  in  the  City  of  San  Jose,  the  said  ven- 
dors, by  Josd  Fernandez,  Alcalde  of  2d  nomination,  were  duly  cited, 
according  to  law,  to  appear  and  receive  the  same  on  the  said  contract 
and  according  to  the  terms  thereof ;  that  the  said  money  was  tendered 
to  the  said  vendors  in  sums  corresponding  to  their  respeetive  shares  in 
the  land,  and  they  were  requested  to  receive  the  same  from  the  said 
Shillaber  in  fulfilment  of  his  part  of  the  said  contract,  which  they  and 
each  of  them  refused  to  do ;  that  the  said  Shillaber  fully  and  faithfully 
complied  with  all  his  engagements  and  undertakings  under  the  said 
contract,  and  that  the  Complainants,  vendors  as  aforesaid,  after  hav- 
made  a  solemn  and  well  considered  contract  of  sale,  and  received  a 
part  of  the  consideration  in  money,  did  fraudulently  refuse  to  accept 
the  balance  of  the  consideration  so  due  to  them,  and  so  tendered  to 
them,  in  order  that  they  might,  with  a  greater  show  of  success,  fraud- 
ulently attempt  to  repudiate  the  contract,  and  thus  secure  the  larger 
price  which  had  been  promised  them,  and  did  thereafter  institute  pro- 
ceedings to  annul  and  set  aside  the  said  contract  as  will  appear  in  this 
answer. 

§35.  And  this  Defendant,  Robert  Walkinshaw,  further  severally 
answering,  saith :  and  these  Defendants,  James  A.  Forbes  and  Wil- 
liam E.  Barron,  believe  it  to  be  true,  that  afterwards,  to  wit,  on  the 
twenty-sixth  day  of  December,  A.  D.  1849,  the  said  Shillaber  sold 


#  577 

and  conveyed  to  this  Defendant  all  his  right,  title  and  estate  acquired 
under  or  by  virtue  of  the  said  contract  of  sale  so  made  by  him  with 
the  aforesaid  Complainants,  vendors,  the  said  Walkinshaw  reimbursing 
said  Shillaber  all  money  paid  on  that  behalf,  and  undertaking  to  pay 
all  money  due  on  the  said  contract  to  the  widow  and  heirs  of  the  said 
Jose*  Reyes  Berreyesa. 

§36.  And  this  Defendant,  James  Alexander  Forbes,  further  sev- 
erally answering,  saith :  and  these  Defendants,  Robert  Walkinshaw 
and  William  E.  Barron,  believe  it  to  be  true,  that  some  time  in  the 
year  1849,  about  the  month  of  October,  hearing  that  the  said  Theo- 
dore Shillaber  was  in  treaty  with  the  said  widow  and  heirs  of  the  said 
Jose*  Reyes  Berreyesa  for  the  purchase  of  all  their  right,  title  and  es- 
tate in  and  to  a  certain  tract  of  land  hereinafter  more  particularly 
described,  as  that  which  was  sold  to  Sr.  Don  Ysidoro  de  la  Torre*, 
hereinafter  mentioned,  and  hearing  that  as  the  price  offered  to  them 
by  the  said  Shillaber  was  the  sum  of  twenty  thousand  dollars,  and  hav- 
ing an  interest  in  the  said  mine  and  lands  of  New  Almaden,  granted 
to  Andres  Castillero  as  aforesaid  under  the  said  registry  of  his  dis- 
covery, and  by  title  of  colonization  ;  and  moreover,  being  the  agent  of 
the  owners  and  workers  of  the  said  mine,  most  of  whom  resided  out  of 
California,  and  could  not  act  for  shemselves  in  the  premises  ;  and  fear- 
ing that  his  and  their  interests  would  be  seriously  jeoparded  in  the  un- 
settled condition  of  the  laws,  and  courts,  and  society  in  California,  in 
any  controversy  which  might  arise  on  any  pretended  adverse  claim  to 
the  said  mine  and  lands  ;  and  deeming  it  to  the  interest  of  himself  and 
all  other  persons  standing  in  his  relation  to  the  said  mine  and  lands, 
under  said  circumstances  to  buy  their  peace,  even  from  the  most  false 
and  fraudulent  pretenders  to  an  adverse  claim,  and  even  at  a  large  sum 
of  money ;  did,  in  the  name  of  the  owners  of  the  said  mine  and  lands 
whose  agent  he  was,  although  he  had  not  authority  from  them  therefor, 
but  in  the  utmost  good  faith,  and  believing  they  would  adopt  his  said  act, 
offer  the  said  widow  and  heirs  of  the  said  Jose*  Reyes  Berreyesa  the 
sum  of  thirty  thousand  dollars  for  their  entire  interest  in  the  tract  of 
land,  which  is  hereinafter  more  particularly  described  as  having  been 
sold  by  the  said  widow  and  heirs  to  the  said  Ysidoro  de  la  Torre*  :  that 
afterwards,  having  ascertained  that  the  said  widow  and  heirs,  or  some 
of  them,  had  actually  made  and  entered  into  a  contract  with  the  said 
Shillaber,  and  signed  an  instrument  of  sale,  conveying  to  him  the 
tract  of  land  for  which  this  Defendant  had  made  them  the  said  offer, 
he  refused  to  complete  the  said  contract  upon  the  said  terms,  as  long 
as  the  said  contract  with  the  said  Shillaber  remained  in  force  ;  and  it 
was  agreed  between  this  Defendant  and  the  said  widow  and  heirs  of 
the  said  Jose*  Reyes  Berreyesa,  that  the  said  purchase  should  be  subject 
to  the  contingency  of  the  sale  to  the  said  Shillaber  being  annulled, 
and  that  this  Defendant  should  not  be  called  upon  to  pay  the  sum  of 


578 

thirty  thousand  dollars  until  the  happening  of  said  event,  but  when- 
ever that  contract  was  set  aside  or  put  out  of  the  way  to  the  satisfac- 
tion of  this  Defendant,  the  contract  should  be  completed  by  the  pay- 
ment of  the  said  sum  of  money  on  his  part,  and  a  conveyance  of  the 
said  land  on  their's.  That  thereupon,  as  these  Defendants  are  in- 
formed and  believe,  the  said  widow  and  heirs  of  the  said  Jose  Reyes 
advising  with  James  M.  Jones,  Esq.,  a  practising  lawyer,  who  resided 
in  the  Pueblo  of  San  Jose,  near  the  residence  of  the  said  Complain- 
ants, and  who  was  the  attorney  of  the  said  Complainants,  executed  a 
Power  of  Attorney  in  favor  of  the  said  Jones,  giving  him  authority  to 
institute  a  suit  in  their  names,  against  the  said  Shillaber  and  others, 
in  order  to  annul  what  they  style  in  their  said  letter  "  a  fraudulent  sale 
"  of  the  lands  of  the  Rancho  of  San  Vicente,  belonging  to  us,"  (the 
Complainants)  "  in  which  pretended  sale,"  they  add,  "  the  said  Shil- 
"  laber  and  his  agents  have  caused  persons  not  thereto  authorized  to 
"  sign  a  deed  of  sale  declaring  that  we  "  (the  said.  Complainants) 
"  have  sold  not  only  the  said  portion  of  the  Rancho  of  San  Vicente, 
"  but  likewise  the  lands  of  New  Almaden,  the  mine  itself,  and  the  site 
"  of  its  works,  which  do  not  belong  to  us"  (the  said  Complainants,) 
"  by  any  title  ;"  that  this  letter  of  attorney,  substantially  and  in  all 
its  material  parts  set  forth  and  recited  as  above,  was  on  the  7th  day  of 
November,  A.  D.  1849,  signed  by  the  said  widow  Zacharias,  and  the 
said  heirs  of  the  late  Jose  Reyes  Berreyesa,  and  delivered  to  their 
said  attorney,  James  M.  Jones  ;  that  this  defendant  having  before  the 
date  of  the  said  letter  of  attorney,  agreed  as  aforesaid  to  purchase  the 
said  tract  of  land  from  the  said  complainants,  and  being  desirous  for 
the  reasons  aforesaid  of  preventing  the  said  Shillaber  and  his  asso- 
ciates from  acquiring  any  pretended  adverse  claim  to  the  mine  and 
lands  of  New  Almaden,  how  false  or  fraudulent  soever  such  claims 
might  in  fact  be,  certainly  wished  that  the  said  complainants  might 
succeed  in  annulling  the  said  sale  to  the  said  Shillaber  ;  but  this  de- 
fendant having  made  the  said  oifer  of  purchase,  which  had  been  be- 
fore the  execution  of  the  said  Power  of  Attorney,  accepted  by  the 
said  widow  and  heirs,  had  no  interest  in  procuring  a  recital  in  the  said 
instrument,  to  the  effect  that  the  said  widow  and  heirs  did  not  claim 
title  to  the  lands,  mine  and  hacienda  of  New  Almaden  and  did  not 
procure  such  recital  to  be  made  ;  that  this  defendant  does  not  remem- 
ber whether  he  prepared  a  draft  of  the  said  letter  of  attorney  to  the 
said  Jones,  and  believes  he  did  not,  but  is  very  certain  that  if  he  did 
draft  such  a  letter  of  attorney,  the  said  recital  was  dictated  to  him  by 
the  said  Berreyesas,  who  have  declared  to  him  over  and  over  again, 
both  before  the  year  1849,  and  afterwards,  that  they  never  claimed 
the  said  Mine  or  Hacienda  by  any  title  :  and  these  defendants,  Wal- 
kinshaw  and  Barron,  say,  that  neither  of  them  was  in  any  manner  cog- 
nizant of  the  said  letter,  nor  do  they  know  by  whom  it  was  drafted  or 


579 

written  ;  that  this  defendant,  Barron,  arrived  in  California  for  the  first 
time  in  March,  1850,  and  that  this  defendant,  Walkinshaw,  being  in- 
terested with  the  said  Shillaber  in  the  said  contract  of  sale,  was  di- 
rectly opposed  to  all  attempts  on  the  part  of  the  said  widow  and  heirs 
to  annul  the  same. 

§37.  And  these  Defendants  further  severally  answering  say,  That 
after  the  foregoing  occurrences,  to  wit :  about  the  month  of  March, 
A.  D.  1850,  Ysidoro  de  la  Torrd,  who  had  a  short  time  before  pur- 
chased a  large  interest  in  the  Mine  and  lands  of  New  Almaden,  ar- 
rived in  California  from  Mexico  with  full  powers  from  the  owners  of 
said  Mine  and  lands  to  take  charge  and  possession  of  the  same,  and  to 
make  contracts  and  expend  money  on  account  thereof,  to  appoint  agents 
and  officers  to  superintend  and  manage  the  said  Mine,  and  generally 
with  full  powers  to  work  it  on  an  extensive  scale  and  conduct  its  af- 
fairs ;  whereby  the  Defendant  Forbes  was  superceded  in  his  powers 
and  agency,  and  ceased  to  have  any  control  over  the  affairs  of  the 
Mine,  except  as  part  owner  thereof. 

§38.  And  this  Defendant  Robert  Walkinshaw  further  severally  an- 
swering saith,  and  these  Defendants,  James  A.  Forbes  and  William  E. 
Barron,  believe  it  to  be  true,  That  on  the  arrival  of  the  said  Ysidoro, 
and  the  institution  of  a  new  agency  for  the  Mine,  this  Defendant 
Walkinshaw,  seeing  that  matters  were  to  be  placed  on  a  new  footing, 
and  believing  that  the  Mine  was  to  be  worked  on  a  scale  correspond- 
ing in  magnitude  with  what  he  believed  to  be  its  great  capabilities,  and 
being  a  part  owner  thereof  to  the  extent,  as  he  claims,  of  three  undivided 
twenty-fourth  parts,  by  title  derived  from  Andres  Castillero,  and  con- 
sidering it  to  be  for  his  interest  to  put  an  end  to  litigation,  did  on  the 
twelfth  day  of  May,  A.  D.  1850,  assign  "end  transfer  to  the  owners  of 
the  said  Mine  and  lands  claiming  under  the  said  Andres  Castillero,  all 
the  right,  title  and  estate  to  the  lands  above  described,  which  he  ac- 
quired by  the  said  contract  of  sale,  which  had  been  assigned  and  trans- 
ferred to  him  by  the  said  Shillaber  ;  with  the  understanding,  never- 
theless, that  the  said  Ysidoro  de  la  Torre*  would  proceed  to  complete 
the  sale  made  as  aforesaid  by  the  said  widow  and  heirs  to  the  said 
James  Alexander  Forbes,  for  and  on  account  of  the  said  owners  of  the 
New  Almaden  Mine. 

§39.  And  this  Defendant  James  Alexander  Forbes,  further  sev- 
erally answering  saith,  and  these  Defendants,  Robert  Walkinshaw  and 
William  E.  Barron,  believe  it  to  be  true,  That  when  the  said  Ysidoro 
arrived  in  California,  this  Defendant  represented  to  him  the  contract 
of  sale  which  he  had  made  with  the  said  widow  and  heirs,  and  requested 
Don  Ysidoro  to  carry  it  into  execution,  as  he  had  authority  to  do  under 
his  powers,  which  the  said  Ysidoro  consented  to  ;  and  that  accordingly 
as  soon  as  the  said  Ysidoro  ascertained  that  the  Defendant  Robert 
Walkinshaw  was  willing  to  surrender  to  the  owners  of  the  Mine  of  New 


580 

Almaden  the  rights  he  had  derived  from  the  assignment  to  him  of  the 
said  contract  by  the  said  Shillaber,  he  expressed  his  willingness  to  car- 
ry into  execution  the  contract  which  this  Defendant  had  made  with  the 
said  widow  and  heirs ;  and  thereupon,  an  estimate  being  made  of  the 
costs  and  expenses  incurred  in  procuring  the  surrender  of  the  contract 
which  the  said  widow  and  heirs  had  made  with  the  said  Shillaber  and 
other  persons  claiming  under  him,  and  the  said  widow  and  heirs  agree- 
ing to  the  said  estimate  at  four  thousand  dollars,  it  was  finally  and 
fully  agreed  between  the  said  Ysidoro  de  la  Torre',  for  himself,  and  re 
presenting  the  owners  of  the  said  Mine,  on  the  one  part,  and  the  said 
widow  and  heirs  of  the  said  Jose*  Reyes  Berreyesa,  deceased  on  the 
other  part,  that  the  last  named  parties,  in  consideration  of  the  sum  of 
twenty-six  thousand  dollars,  to  be  paid  by  the  said  Ysidoro  de  la  Torrd, 
would  sell  and  convey  to  him  for  his  own  benefit  and  that  of  his  part 
owners  of  the  Mine  of  New  Almaden,  all  their  right,  title  and  estate 
in  and  to  the  tract  of  land  before  described  in  the  contract  of  sale,  made 
as  aforesaid  with  the  said  Shillaber ;  and  thereupon  the  said  widow 
and  all  the  other  heirs  of  the  said  Jose  Reyes  Berreyesa,  by  the  said 
Jose  de  los  Santos  Berreyesa,  their  agent  and  attorney,  by  them  there- 
unto duly  authorized,  did  on  the  26th  day  of  April,  A.  D.  1850,  sign 
an  instrument  in  writing,  setting  forth  the  said  contract  of  sale,  and 
conveying  to  the  said  Ysidoro  de  la  Torre*,  for  the  uses  aforesaid,  the 
tract  of  land  mentioned  and  described  in  their  aforesaid  contract  with 
the  said  Theodore  Shillaber. 

§40.  And  this  Defendant  James  Alexander  Forbes  further  seve- 
rally answering  saith,  and  these  Defendants,  Robert  Walkinshaw  and 
William  E.  Barron,  believe  it  to  be  true,  that  during  the  pendency  of 
the  litigation  between  the  said  widow  and  heirs  of  the  said  Josd  Reyes 
deceased,  and  the  said  Shillaber,  to  procure  the  rescission  of  their  said 
contract  of  sale  with  him,  and  before  their  said  final  agreement  with 
the  said  Ysidoro  de  la  Torre*,  this  Defendant,  on  account  of  his  said  con- 
tract with  the  said  widow  and  heirs,  had  advanced  to  the  said  widow  the 
sum  of  11,591,00,  and  to  the  said  Nemecio  the  sum  of  11,900.00, 
and  to  the  said  Ygnacio  the  sum  of  $450.00,  and  to  the  said  Fernan- 
do the  sum  of  $193.00,  and  to  the  said  Santiago  the  sum  of  8810.00, 
and  to  the  said  Jose  de  los  Santos  the  sum  of  $700.00,  making  in  the 
aggregate  the  sum  of  five  thousand  six  hundred  and  forty-four  dollars, 
paid  by  the  Defendant  to  the  said  several  persons  on  account  of  his 
said  contract  with  them,  and  by  them  and  each  of  them  accepted  in 
part  payment  of  the  consideration  thereof.  And  this  Defendant  fur- 
ther saith,  that  the  said  Jose*  de  los  Santos,  when  he  signed  the  afore- 
said contract  of  sale  for  himself  and  for  his  mother,  and  brothers  and 
sisters,  made  an  estimate  of  the  money  which  this  Defendant  had  paid 
on  account  of  the  said  contract,  and  computed  it  at  the  aforesaid  re- 
spective sums ;  which  sums  of  money  the  said  widow  and  heirs  have 
to  this  day  retained. 


581 

§41.  And  these  Defendants,  James  A.  Forbes  and  Robert  Walk- 
inshaw,  further  severally  answering,  say,  and  this  Defendant,  William 
E.  Barron,  believes  it  to  be  true,  that  the  said  Ysidoro.  de  la  Torre*, 
after  the  said  contract  of  sale  was  made  and  signed,  as  aforesaid,  by 
the  said  widow  and  heirs,  tendered  them  the  whole  consideration 
money,  and  requested  them  to  receive  it,  which  they  refused  to  do, 
for  what  reason  these  Defendants  do  not  know,  unless,  as  they  believe, 
there  had  grown  up  in  the  said  Berreyesa  family,  disputes  and  dis- 
cord, in  respect  to  the  division  which  they  were  to  make  among  them- 
selves of  the  said  purchase  money. 

§42.  And  these  Defendants,  James  Alexander  Forbes  and  Robert 
Walkinshaw,  further  severally  answering,  say,  and  this  Defendant, 
William  E.  Barron,  believes  it  to  be  true,  that  the  said  Defendant, 
Walkinshaw,  in  the  year  1849,  dissatisfied  with  the  treatment  he  re- 
ceived from  the  owners  of  the  mine  and  lands  of  New  Almaden,  and 
having,  as  he  supposed,  just  cause  for  dissatisfaction,  did  associate 
with  the  said  Theodore  Shillaber  in  said  contract  of  sale,  made  as 
aforesaid,  between  the  said  Shillaber  of  the  one  part,  and  the  said 
widow  and  heirs  of  Jose*  Reyes  deceased,  of  the  other ;  and  that  the 
Defendant,  Forbes,  throughout  the  whole  of  the  said  contest,  with  the 
said  Shillaber  and  his  associates,  and  the  owners  of  the  mine,  acted 
for  the  latter  whose  agent  he  was,  and  opposed  and  strenuously  re- 
sisted the  said  Shillaber  and  all  other  persons,  endeavoring  to  set  up, 
or  to  acquire  any  pretence  or  claim  of  right  adverse  to  his  own,  and  that 
of  the  persons  whom  he  represented  ;  and  that  so  far  from  there  being 
any  combination,  confederacy  or  collusion,  between  these  Defendants 
or  any  of  them,  for  the  purposes  charged  by  the  Complainants  in  their 
said  bill  of  Complaint,  or  for  any  other  purpose,  they  say,  (and  so 
does  the  Defendant,  William  E.  Barron,)  that  the  said  Barron  at  that 
time  had  no  interest  either  present  or  prospective  in  the  said  mine  or 
lands,  and  was  not  during  said  transactions,  and  had  never  been  in 
California,  and  did  not  arrive  in  California  until  the  month  of  March, 
1850,  and  did  not  acquire  any  interest  in  the  said  mine,  or  lands, 
until  the-  month  of  May,  1855  ;  and  that  these  Defendants,  Walkin- 
shaw and  Forbes,  were  directly  opposed  to  each  other,  in  the  said  at- 
tempt of  the  said  Theodore  Shillaber  and  others  to  wrest  the  posses- 
sion of  said  mine  and  lands  from  the  owners  thereof  claiming  under 
Andres  Castillero,  and  that  the  said  Forbes  successfully  defeated  all 
such  attempts  ;  and  were  directly  opposed  to  each  other  in  all  treaties 
and  negotiations  with  the  said  widow  and  heirs,  for  the  purchase  of 
their  right  and  title  to  the  said  tract  of  land,  sold  by  them,  as  afore- 
said, first  to  the  said  Shillaber,  and  afterwards  to  the  said  De  la 
Torre  ;  and  that  the  said  opposition  engendered  such  feelings  of  ani- 
mosity in  the  mind  of  each  to  the  other,  that  from  the  time  of  said 
occurrences  to  this  day  they  have  not  been  on  speaking  terms. 


582 

§43.  And  these  defendants  Robert  Walkinshaw  and  William  E. 
Barron,  further  severally  answering  say,  and  this  defendant,  James 
A.  Forbes  believes  it  to  be  true  ;  that  they  are  with  the  other  persons 
hereinafter  named,  the  owners  and  proprietors  of  the  said  mine  and 
lands  of  New  Almaden,  claiming  the  same  under  the  titles  thereto 
acquired  as  aforesaid  by  the  said  Andres  Castillero,  and  that  as  such 
proprietors  all  the  title  and  interest  acquired  as  aforesaid,  by  the  said 
Ysidoro  de  la  Torr£,  by  the  conveyance  made  to  him  by  the  said 
Robert  Walkinshaw,  as  well  as  that  acquired  by  the  contract  of  sale 
made  as  aforesaid,  between  the  said  Ysidoro,  and  the  said  widow  and 
heirs  of  the  said  Jose"  Reyes  Berreyesa,  have  enured  to  the  benefit  of 
the  said  Walkinshaw  and  Barron,  and  the  other  proprietors  of  the  said 
mine  and  lands. 

§44.  And  these  defendants,  Rob't  Walkinshaw  and  Wm.  E.  Bar- 
ron, further  severally  answering  say,  and  this  defendant  James  A. 
Forbes  believes  it  to  be  true,  that  besides  the  said  defendants  Walkin- 
shaw and  Barron,  there  are  other  persons  having  an  interest  in  the 
lands  and  mine  of  New  Almaden,  as  proprietors  and  owners  thereof 
in  fee,  by  title  derived  from  Andres  Castillero,  and  that  the  said 
owners  and  proprietors  are  in  possession  of  said  mine  and  lands,  and 
are  as  follows :  Eustaquio  Barron,  of  the  City  of  Mexico,  Eustaquio 
W.  Barron,  of  Tepic,  in  the  Republic  of  Mexico,  Martin  La  Piedra, 
of  said  Tepic,  Francisco  Maria  Ortiz,  of  Gaudalaxara,  in  the  said 
Republic,  and  John  Parrott  and  James  R.  Bolton,  of  the  City  of  San 
Francisco,  in  this  State ;  and  that  the  said  proprietors  and  those 
under  whom  they  hold,  made  and  entered  into  a  contract,  long  before 
the  institution  of  this  suit,  and  the  aforesaid  action  of  ejectment,  with 
the  said  Eustaquio  Barron,  and  the  said  Eustaquio  W.  Barron  and 
with  William  Forbes  and  Fernando  Escandon,  of  the  City  of  Mexico, 
and  with  the  firm  of  William  Gibbs  &  Co.,  of  Lima  in  Peru,  (the 
names  of  whose  members  these  defendants  know  not,  and  therefore 
cannot  set  forth,)  for  the  working  of  the  said  mine,  and  that  the  said 
mine  is  now  and  has  been  for  a  long  time  worked  under  said  contract ; 
that  by  theterms  of  the  said  contract  the  proprietors  receive  a  certain 
proportion  of  the  quicksilver  yielded  by  the  reduction  of  the  ore  of  cinna- 
bar dug  out  of  the  mine,  and  the  said  contractors  the  residue  of  such 
yield ;  and  that  said  contract  will  not  expire  before  the  year  1862, 
and  therefore,  these  defendants  say,  that  the  said  proprietors  and  con- 
tractors have  an  interest  in  the  matter  in  litigation  in  this  cause,  and 
should  be  made  parties  defendant  therein. 

§45.  And  the  Defendant,  James  Alexander  Forbes,  further 
severally  answering,  saith :  and  these  Defendants,  Robert  Walk- 
inshaw and  William  E.  Barron,  believe  it  to  be  true,  that  he  was 
at  one  time,  to  wit,  in  the  year  1850,  the  owner  in  fee  of  two  un- 
divided twenty-fourth  parts  of  the  mine  and  lands  of  New  Alma- 
den, by  title  derived  from  Andres  Castillero  ;  and  that  thereafter, 


583 

to  wit,  on  the  ninth  day  of  August.  A.  D.  1850,  he  sold  and  con- 
veyed one  of  the  said  parts  to  John  Parrott,  now  a  resident  of 
the  city  of  San  Francisco,  in  this  State,  with  a  clause  of  general 
warranty  ;  and  that  subsequently,  to  wit,  on  the  twenty-ninth  day 
of  May,  A.  D.,  1855,  he  sold  and  conveyed  the  remaining  undi- 
vided twenty-fourth  part  of  the  said  lands  and  mine  to  the  De- 
fendant, William  E.  Barron,  without  warranting  the  title  ;  where- 
by this  Defendant  was  divested  of  all  title  and  estate  in  the  said 
mine  and  lands  of  New  Almaden,  and  surrendered  his  possession 
thereof  ;  and  further,  that  this  Defendant  is  not  now,  and  was  not 
at  the  time  of  the  institution  of  this  suit,  or  of  the  said  action  of 
ejectment  in  any  manner  interested  in  the  said  mine  and  lands, 
except  as  warrantor  of  the  part  sold  to  Parrott,  nor  in  any  part 
of  the  premises  mentioned  by  the  Complainants  in  their  said  bill 
of  complaint,  or  in  their  declaration  in  ejectment  ;  and  is  not  now 
interested  in  the  same,  except  as  such  warrantor,  and  is  not  in  the 
possession  thereof,  and  does  not  claim  title  to  the  said  lands,  nor 
to  any  part  thereof. 

§46.  And  these  Defendants  further  severally  answering,  say  : 
that  between  the  month  of  December,  1845,  when  Andres  Castil- 
lero  and  his  partners,  were  placed  in  possession  of  the  said  mine 
and  lands  of  New  Almaden,  and  the  first  day  of  May,  1852,  these 
Defendants,  with  their  co-proprietors  and  contractors,  and  the 
persons  from  whom  they  claim,  expended,  in  working  the  said 
mine,  reducing  the  ores  taken  therefrom,  and  improving  the  said 
lands,  the  full  sum  of  ($978,114.11,)  nine  hundred  and  seventy- 
eight  thousand,  one  hundred  and  fourteen  dollars  and  eleven 
cents  ;  and  that  the  whole  price  of  quicksilver  extracted  and  sold 
during  that  time,  together  with  the  value  of  the  whole  amount 
then  on  hand  unsold,  was  the  sum  of  five  hundred  and  sevent- 
eight  thousand  dollars,  ($578,000,)  as  near  as  may  be,  thus  show- 
ing that  after  working  the  said  mine  for  nearly  seven  years,  its 
proprietors  and  contractors  were  in  debt,  on  account  of  the  said 
mine,  in  the  sum  of  four  hundred  thousand  dollars  ;  all  of  which 
was  set  forth  in  the  answer  filed  on  or  about  the  fourth  of  May, 
1852,  in  the  United  States  District  Court  for  the  Northern  Dist- 
rict of  California,  to  the  Bill  in  Equity,  filed  by  the  said  Com- 
plainants against  these  Defendants,  Forbes  and  Wilkinshaw,  and 
others,  hereinafter  mentioned,  and  as  these  Defendants  believe, 
constituted  one  of  the  reasons  why  the  Plaintiffs  in  the  ejectment 
suit,  to  which  the  said  Bill  in  Equity  was  auxiliary,  suffered  the 
said  suit  at  law  to  slumber  for  so  many  years.  And  that  the  en- 
tire proceeds  of  the  sales  of  quicksilver  produced  by  said  mine  of 
New  Almaden,  from  the  month  of  December,  A.  D.  1845,  to  the 
present  time, — a  little  more  than  ten  years, — have  not  paid  an 
interest  equal  to  two  per  cent,  per  month  on  each  year's  excess  of 


584 

annual  expenses  over  the  annual  receipts,  on  the  supposition  of  a 
balance  of  accounts  being  struck  at  the  end  of  each  year,  and  the 
said  monthly  interest  allowed  for  the  succeeding  year  on  the  said 
excess  of  annual  expenses  over  annual  receipts ;  while  the  usual 
and  curreut  interest  of  the  country  during  the  same  period,  has 
ranged  from  ten  per  cent,  per  month  to  two  per  cent,  per  month, 
and  has  been  at  no  time  less  than  the  last  named  sum. 

§47.  And  these  Defendants  further  severally  answering,  say  : 
that  sometime  in  the  month  of  February,  1848,  Mr.  Alexander 
Forbes,  as  before  stated;  being  largely  interested  in  the  mine  and 
lands  of  New  Almaden,  as  proprietor,  claiming  under  the  said 
titles  of  Andres  Castillero,  caused  a  survey  of  the  same  to  be 
made  by  Chester  S.  Lyman,  Esq.,  who  was  at  that  time  Surveyor 
for  the  middle  Department  of  Upper  California,  holding  said 
office  by  commission  from  R.  B.  Mason,  then  Civil  and  Military 
Governor  of  California,  for  the  purpose,  among  others,  of  fixing 
the  dividing  lines  between  said  lands  and  those  of  his  neighbors, 
the  said  widow  and  heirs  of  Jose'  Reyes  Berreyesa  ;  that  the  said 
widow  and  heirs  were  requested  to  attend  said  survey  of  the  said 
dividing  line,  and  to  make  known  what  they  claimed  as  their 
lands,  and  where  the  said  dividing  line  should  be  run;  that  the  said 
widow  Zacharias  and  some  of  the  other  Complainants,  to  wit  : 
Fernando  and  Jose*  Encarnacion  and  Lorenzo  Pineda,  then  mar- 
ried to  Maria  del  Carmen  Berreyesa,  but  now  deceased,  and  also 
the  said  Nemecio,  who  was  then  living,  but  is  now  deceased,  were 
present  at  the  running  of  said  dividing  line,  and  pointed  out  the 
boundaries  of  their  said  rancho,  and  assisted  in  the  said  survey 
and  in  the  establishment  of  the  said  line,  and  assented  to  the  line 
so  run  off,  measured  and  established,  and  agreed  that  it  should 
ever  after  be  considered  as  the  true  dividing  line  between  the 
said  Rancho  of  San  Vicente  and  the  lands  of  New  Almaden ; 
that  there  were  present  at  the  said  survey  and  establishment  of 
the  said  dividing  line  the  widow  and  the  above  named  heirs, 
Complainants,  and  the  said  Alexander  Forbes  and  Fernando  Al- 
den,  and  Chester  S.  Lyman,  the  Surveyor,  and  various  assistants 
and  laborers  ;  and  this  Defendant,  James  Alexander  Forbes,  says, 
that  the  said  widow  and  heirs  on  the  occasion  aforesaid,  and 
while  the  Surveyor  was  adjusting  the  position  of  the  flags,  for  the 
purpose  of  running  his  lines,  pointed  out  to  him  two  hills  on 
which  the  Surveyor's  flags  were  placed,  at  the  points  designated 
on  "  Exhibit  X  v  by  the  letters  I  and  V,  and  told  him  that  the 
dividing  line  between  their  rancho  and  the  lands  of  New  Alma- 
den was  correctly  defined  by  the  position  of  the  said  flags.  And 
these  Defendants  further  say,  that  in  making  the  said  survey  the 
said  proprietors  of  the  mine  and  lands  of  New  Almaden  exclu- 
ded a  part  of  what  they  had  a  right  to  claim  according  to  their 


585 

limits  as  defined  in  the  act  of  possession  and  concession,  made  as 
aforesaid  to  Andres  Castillero,  by  Anto  Maria  Pico,  Alcalde,  and 
as  defined  in  the  colonization  grant,  made  as  aforesaid,  to  Andres 
Castillero  by  the  President  of  Mexico  ;  that  such  exclusion  was 
made  in  favor  of  the  widow  and  heirs  of  the  said  Jose'  Reyes 
Berreyesa  ;  and  that  the  said  land  so  excluded  by  said  survey  was 
valley  land,  comprising  some  of  the  most  fertile  lands  within  the 
limits  of  the  Rancho  San  Vicente,  and  also  irrigable,  and  best 
suited  to  all  purposes  of  pasturage  and  cultivation  ;  and  this  ex- 
clusion was  agreed  to  by  said  proprietors  because  they  did  not 
wish  to  deprive  the  said  widow  and  heirs  of  any  part  of  the  land 
claimed  by  them  as  within  the  limits  of  their  alleged  grant,  and 
least  of  all,  of  such  as  was  suitable  to  the  purposes  of  occupation, 
settlement,  cultivation  and  pasturage  ;  and  because  desiring  to 
have  permanently  established  boundaries,  they  agreed  to  such  as 
the  said  widow  and  heirs  pointed  out  and  claimed,  and  declared 
themselves  content  with. 

§48.  And  these  Defendants  further  severally  answering  say, 
That  the  limits  of  the  lands  of  New  Almaden,  surveyed  by  Ches- 
ter S.  Lyman,  on  the  occasion  aforesaid,  are  correctly  delineated 
on  the  said  Exhibit  X,  by  the  lines  thereon  shaded  with  green, 
and  that  the  said  lines,  or  so  much  of  them  as  lie  contiguous  to 
the  said  Rancho  of  the  Berreyesas,  were  those  pointed  out  and 
established  by  the  said  widow  and  heirs,  and  by  them  agreed 
upon  as  a  permanent  dividing  line  between  their  said  Rancho  and 
the  lands  of  New  Almaden  ;  and  these  Defendants  further  say, 
that  the  area  included  within  the  said  survey  is  equal  to  two 
square  leagues,  and  that  it  was  laid  out  in  that  form  to  compen- 
sate for  so  much  of  the  square  area  A  B  C  D,  as  lies  to  the  north 
of  the  line  LIJ;  and  these  Defendants  further  say,  that  neither 
the  said  Jose*  Reyes  Berreyesa,  in  his  life  time,  nor  his  said  widow 
and  heirs  at  law,  or  any  of  them,  since  his  death,  was  ever  in 
possession,  by  virtue  of  any  title  or  otherwise,  of  the  land  inclu- 
ded in  the  limits  of  the  survey  of  the  lands  of  New  Almaden, 
made  by  Chester  S.  Lyman,  as  aforesaid,  and  above  described. 

§49.  And  these  Defendants  further  severally  answering  say,  That 
ever  since  the  month  of  December,  A.  D.  1845,  these  Defendants, 
(except  James  A.  Forbes,  who  was  in  possession  until  he  sold  to  the 
Defendant,  Barron,  as  aforesaid,)  with  their  co-proprietors,  and  the 
said  contractors,  and  the  persons  under  whom  they  claim  title,  have 
been  in  the  possession  of  the  said  Mine  of  New  Almaden,  and  of  the 
Hacienda  so  marked  on  Exhibit  "  X,"  and  of  the  said  square  area,  E 
FGH,  except  as  hereinafter  mentioned  ;  and  from  the  20th  day  of 
May,  A.  D.  1846,  in  the  possession  of  the  square  area,  A  BCD, 
except  as  hereinafter  mentioned  ;  that  during  the  whole  of  that  time 
they  have  been  engaged  in  working  the  said  Mine,  and  improving  the 
45 


586 

said  lands,  at  a  vast  expense  and  risk ;  that  they  have  taken  from  said 
Mine  large  quantities  of  cinnabar  and  reduced  the  same  to  quicksilver, 
and  exported  large  quantities  of  that  metal  from  this  State  to  be  sold 
in  foreign  markets,  there  being  in  this  State,  and  in  the  United  States, 
a  market  for  only  a  very  small  proportion  of  what  they  have  produced  ; 
that  the  process  of  reducing  the  ores  requires  a  great  deal  of  fuel  and 
some  lime  ;  that  all  the  fuel  which  has  been  used  by  these  Defendants, 
(except  the  Defendant,  Walkinshaw)  their  co-proprietors,  and  the  said 
contractors  and  the  persons  under  whom  they  claim,  for  the  said  pur- 
poses, or  for  any  other  purpose  whatever,  has  been,  since  the  month  of 
July,  1850,  purchased  by  their  agents  at  the  Hacienda  from  persons 
who  have  procured  the  same  from  the  adjacent  Ranchos,  and  brought 
it  to  the  Hacienda  to  sell ;  that  these  Defendants  believe  much  of  the 
wood  they  have  used  has  been  cut  on  the  Rancho  of  the  Complainants, 
within  the  limits  mentioned  and  described  in  their  alleged  grant  as 
defined  in  this  answer,  but  that  none  of  it  was  cut  by  these  Defend- 
ants, nor  by  any  of  them,  or  by  their  or  any  of  their  agents,  nor  by 
their  authority,  direction  or  permission ;  but  these  Defendants  are  in- 
formed and  believe,  and  so  say,  that  a  very  large  proportion,  if  not  all, 
of  the  wood  which  they  have  purchased,  has  been  cut  by  certain  per- 
sons under  contract  with  the  said  widow  and  heirs  of  Jose'  Reyes,  de- 
ceased, complainants,  and  by  their  permission ;  and  that  the  said  widow 
and  many  of  the  said  heirs  have,  during  the  last  five  years  and  more, 
frequently  been  to  the  Hacienda  to  ascertain  how  much  wood  had  been 
delivered  by  certain  persons,  and  how  much  money  had  been  paid  for 
it,  in  order  that  they  might  ascertain  what  was  due  to  them  under 
their  contracts  with  such  persons  ;  and  that  neither  before  the  month  of 
July,  1850,  nor  at  any  other  time,  have  these  Defendants,  or  any  of 
them,  (except  the  Defendant  Walkinshaw,  as  hereinafter  stated,)  cut 
down  or  taken  any  growing  or  other  trees,  outside  of  the  limits  of  their 
land  as  surveyed  by  the  said  Lyman  ;  that  sometime  in  the  year  1848, 
and  thence  to  the  year  1850,  some  lime  was  taken  out  of  a  quarry 
whose  locality  is  designated  on  Exhibit  X  by  the  point  W,  and  in  very 
small  quantities  for  the  purposes  of  the  Mine  ;  that  after  the  year 
1850,  and  up  to  the  year  1853,  lime  was  taken  from  quarries  whose 
localities  are  respectively  designated  Y  and  Z,  on  the  said  Exhibit  X, 
for  the  purposes  of  the  Mine  ;  that  never  at  any  time  have  these  De- 
fendants, or  any  of  them,  dug  or  taken,  or  caused  to  be  dug  or  taken, 
any  lime  at  any  other  place  or  places,  either  on  their  own  lands  of 
Almaden  or  on  the  lands  claimed  by  the  said  complainants  ;  but  that 
since  the  year  1853,  they  have  purchased  whatever  lime  they  needed, 
and  paid  therefor  in  cash,  it  being  brought  to  the  Hacienda  already 
burnt,  and  put  up  in  casks,  and  there  and  in  that  condition  sold  to 
these  Defendants. 

§50.     And  these  Defendants  further  severally  answering,  say :  that 


587 

although  they  claim  title  to  the  tract  of  land  sold  as  aforesaid,  by  the 
said  widow  and  some  of  the  other  complainants,  to  the  said  Shillaber, 
and  afterwards  by  the  said  widow  and  the  heirs  of  the  said  Jose  Reyes 
deceased,  to  the  said  Ysidoro  de  la  Torre,  they  have  been  wrongfully 
and  unlawfully  deprived  of  the  possession  of  all  that  part  of  the  said 
tract,  which  lies  outside  of  the  lines  of  Lyman's  said  survey,  except  a 
small  piece  of  about  fifty  acres  located  around  the  house  of  tne  De- 
fendant, Walkinshaw,  indicated  by  name  on  the  Exhibit  Jl,  and  that 
the  Complainants  have  been  in  possession  of  the  same  for  several 
years,  and  do  now  possess  it. 

§51.  And  the  said  Defendant,  Robert  Walkinshaw,  admits  that  he 
has  used  a  portion  of  the  growing  trees  on  the  land  sold  as  aforesaid, 
by  some  of  the  Complainants  to  the  said  Shillaber  and  to  the  said  de 
la  Torre,  outside  the  limits  of  Lyman's  said  survey,  and  within  the 
limits  of  the  land  called  for,  by  the  alleged  grant  of  Alvarado,  to  the 
said  Jose*  Reyes  ;  but  he  says,  that  the  timber  so  cut  was  used  for 
building  fences  and  other  purposes  about  a  farm,  and  for  fire  wood ; 
and  that  he  hath  the  right  to  possess  said  land  and  use  said  timber, 
under  and  by  virtue  of  his  titles  thereto  set  forth  in  this  answer ;  and 
he  further  saith,  and  so  say  the  other  Defendants,  that  he  has  not  cut 
down,  or  used  any  growing  timber  on  the  said  land  or  elsewhere  by  the 
order  or  direction  of  the  said  Forbes  and  Barron,  or  either  of  them, 
nor  as  their  agents,  or  to  be  used  in  or  about  said  mine. 

§52.  And  these  Defendants  further  severally  answering,  say :  as 
to  so  much  of  the  said  Complainants'  bill  of  complaint  as  charges  that 
the  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  quicksilver  amount  to  the  average  sum  of 
three  thousand  dollars  per  day,  or  thereabout,  they  deny  that  the 
same  is  true ;  and  they  deny  that  they  fraudulently  retain  the  pro- 
ceeds or  a  greater  part  of  the  proceeds  of  said  quicksilver  beyond  the 
jurisdiction  of  this  Court ;  and  they  aver  that  the  parts  of  said  proceeds 
corresponding  to  their  respective  interests  in  the  said  mine  and  lands 
are  regularly  distributed  and  paid  them  in  the  due  course  of  the  busi- 
ness of  the  negotiation,  and  by  them  retained  in  this  State  ;  and  they 
deny  that  they  have  not  visible  property,  means  or  resources  of  any 
kind  within  the  State  of  California,  sufficient  in  amount  and  value  to 
satisfy  or  discharge  the  damages  which  the  said  Complainants  are 
justly  entitled  to  recover  of  them,  on  account  of  any  acts  of  trespass, 
w?aste  and  destruction,  ever  by  them  committed  on  any  lands  belong- 
ing to  the  Complainants.  And  these  Defendants  aver,  that  the  said 
Barron,  and  the  said  James  R.  Bolton,  and  the  said  John  Parrott,  all 
of  whom  reside  in  the  city  of  San  Francisco,  State  of  California,  are 
the  owners  and  possessors  of  a  large  amount  of  very  valuable  and  highly 
improved  land,  and  have,  besides  a  considerable  sum  of  money  invested 
in  their  business,  and  the  whole  of  the  real  estate  so  by  them  owned 
in  San  Francisco  is  worth,  according  to  the  best  of  the  information, 


588 

knowledge  and  belief  of  these  Defendants  about  one  million  of  dollars  ; 
and  these  Defendants  further  aver  that  the  other  proprietors  and  con- 
tractors before  named,  are  worth  in  the  aggregate  at  least  five  millions 
of  dollars,  exclusive  of  their  interest  in  the  mine  and  lands  of  New  Al- 
maden,  and  that  although  thej  do  not  reside  in  this  State,  but  live 
and  have  their  fortunes  elsewhere,  they  are  amply  able  to  respond  to 
any  damages  which  could  be  recovered  of  them  by  the  Complainants, 
even  supposing  all  the  statements  and  allegations  of  the  said  complaint 
to  be  true.  And  these  Defendants  further  say,  that  at  the  time  of 
filing  their  bill  of  complaint  in  this  cause,  and  instituting  the  action  of 
ejectment  therein  mentioned,  the  said  Complainants  well  knew  that  the 
said  John  Parrott,  and  the  other  proprietors  and  contractors  were  in- 
terested in  the  said  mine  and  lands  and  had  been  in  the  possession 
thereof  for  several  years,  working  the  said  mine  and  exporting  and 
selling  a  large  part  of  its  products. 

§53.  And  these  Defendants  further  severally  answering,  say :  they 
deny  that  the  said  Complainants  have  sustained  or  will  sustain  any 
injury,  irreparable  or  other,  from  the  working  of  said  mine  of  New 
Almaden  by  these  Defendants,  their  co-proprietors,  and  the  said  con- 
tractors, or  any  of  them,  even  supposing  all  the  statements  and  charges 
in  the  said  bill  of  complaint  regarding  the  title  of  the  Complainants, 
and  the  trespasses  by  the  Defendants  to  be  true ;  and  they  further 
deny  that  they,  or  any,  or  either  of  them,  or  that  their  co- proprietors, 
and  the  said  contractors,  or  any  or  either  of  them,  have  ever,  at  any 
time,  worked  the  said  mine  of  New  Almaden,  or  disposed  of  the  pro- 
ceeds of  sales  of  the  metal  yielded  thereby,  with  any  view  to  defraud 
the  said  Complainants  of  their  just  rights,  or  to  place  said  proceeds 
beyond  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Courts  of  this  State,  or  of  the  United 
States ;  or  with  the  design  of  avoiding  the  payment  of  any  damages 
which  the  said  Complainants  might  possibly  recover  of  them,  on 
account  of  said  alleged  acts  of  trespass  or  destruction  ;  but  on  the  con- 
trary they  aver,  that  these  Defendants  and  the  other  owners  of  the 
mine  and  lands  of  New  Almaden,  and  the  said  contractors,  have 
always  worked  and  improved  the  same  in  the  manner  that  any  other 
owner,  having  full  confidence  in  his  title,  and  desiring  to  develop  the 
resources  of  such  property,  would  work  and  improve  said  mine  and 
lands  ;  that  much  the  larger  portion  of  the  quicksilver  procured  from 
the  said  mine  has  been  sent  abroad  for  sale,  because  there  is  not  in 
the  United  States  a  market  for  any  except  a  small  part  thereof ;  and 
that  the  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  quicksilver  have  always  been  dis- 
tributed among  the  owners  and  contractors  in  dividends  corresponding 
to  their  respective  shares  and  interests. 

§54.  And  these  Defendants  further  severally  answering,  say  : 
that  the  matters  of  defence  which  the  said  Complainants  have 
anticipated   in   their  said  bill,   and   endeavored  to  avoid,   are 


589 

already  sufficiently  set  up  in  this  answer,  and  as  to  the  matters 
of  avoidance  which  the  said  Complainants  have  set  forth  in  their 
said  complaint,  these  Defendants  say  : 

§55.  That  the  Alcalde,  before  whom  the  aforesaid  registry  of 
the  discovery  of  the  said  mine  was  made,  (called  in  the  Complain- 
ants' said  bill  of  complaint,  a  "  pretended  denouncement,")  did 
have  jurisdiction  of  the  matter  ; 

§56.  That  the  said  Castillero  did  disclose  the  names  of  his 
associates,  by  a  writing  of  partnership,  dated  Nov.  2nd,  in  the 
year  1845,  and  authenticated  by  the  Prefect  of  the  Second  Dis- 
trict, Don  Manuel  Castro,  the  original  document  being  deposited 
in  the  archives  of  the  Partido,  and  a  certified  copy  thereof  signed 
by  said  Manuel  Castro,  the  said  Prefect,  and  by  Antonio  Maria 
Pico,  the  Alcalde  before  whom  the  said  registry  of  the  said  dis- 
covery was  made,  the  said  certified  copy  being  dated  December 
8th,  1845,  and  annexed  to  and  forming  a  part  of  the  records  of 
said  proceedings  of  registration  of  discovery  and  juridical  pos- 
session. 

§57.  That  the  names  of  said  associates  of  the  said  Castillero 
so  disclosed,  were  Jose  Castro,  Secundino  Robles,  Teodoro  Robles, 
and  Friar  Jose  Maria  del  Refugio  Snares  del  Real ;  that  neither 
of  said  associates,  Jose*  Castro,  Secundino  Robles,  and  Teodoro 
Robles,  was  at  the  time  of  such  registration,  had  been  previously, 
or  has  since  become,  "  either  a  regular  of  religious  orders,  or  a 
secular  ecclesiastic;"  that  these  Defendants  have  been  informed, 
and  believe  it  to  be  true,  that  the  said  Friar  Jose"  M.  R.  S.  del 
Real,  to  whom  by  said  writing  of  partnership,  the  aforesaid  Cas- 
tillero made  a  voluntary  grant  of  four  shares  as  a  perpetual  dona- 
tion, was  then  a  Regular  of  Religious  Orders,  and  that  if,  by  the 
ordinances  on  the  subject,  the  said  Friar  Jose"  M.  R.  S.  del  Real 
who  was  a  regular,  could  not  acquire  a  title  in  mines,  then  the 
said  Andres  Castillero  did  not  part  with  the  shares  which  he 
attempted  to  so  donate  to  the  said  Friar  Jose*  M.  R.  S.  del  Real. 

§58.  That  the  said  Castillero  did  sink  a  trial  pit  within  ninety 
days,  and  have  the  same  inspected  according  to  the  then  existing 
law. 

§59.  "That  if  said  Castillero  did  not  contribute  to  the  revenues 
of  the  Mexican  Government  by  the  payment  of  a  "  percentum  of 
the  proceeds  of  said  mine,"  it  was  for  the  reason  that  the  then 
existing  laws  of  Mexico  did  not  reserve  thereto  any  percentum  of 
the  proceeds  of  said  mine,  but  on  the  contrary,  offered  a  premium 
or  reward  for  the  discovery  and  working  of  Quicksilver  mines. 

§60.  That  neither  the  said  Castillero  nor  these  Defendants 
have  "  ever  paid  to  the  said  Berreyesa,  deceased,  his  widow  or 
heirs,  or  to  any  one  for  them  "  damages  resulting  from  the  work- 
king  of  said  mine,  nor  the  use  of  said  land  nor  the  timber 


590 

thereon, "  for  the  reason  that  no  such  damages  have  ever  been 
lawfully  assessed,  nor  has  any  demand  for  such  assessment  ever 
been  made,  either  upon  said  Castillero  or  upon  either  or  any  of 
these  Defendants;  for  the  reason  that  no  damages  have  ever  re- 
sulted to  the  said  Berreyesa,  deceased,  to  his  widow  or  heirs,  from 
the  working  of  said  mines,  and  the  use  of  the  land  and  the  timber 
thereon,  but  on  the  contrary  large  pecuniary  advantages  ;  for  the 
further  reason  that  said  mine  is  not  on  any  land  now  belonging 
to,  or  which  ever  did  belong  to  said  Berreyesa,  or  his  widow  or 
heirs;  and  for  the  further  reason  that  neither  the  said  Castillero, 
or  these  Defendants,  or  either  or  any  of  them,  has  ever  used  any 
land  or  the  timber  thereon,  which  ever  did  belong  to  or  does  now 
belong  to  said  Berreyesa,  deceased,  his  widow  or  heirs. 

§61.  And  these  Defendants  further  say,  that  the  pertinencies, 
or  shares  of  said  mine  were  measured  off  as  required  by  law,  to 
wit:  three  thousand  varas  of  land  in  all  directions,  and  the  juri- 
dical possession  thereof  given  to  the  said  Castillero,  the  same 
being  made  and  executed  by  said  Alcalde  of  First  Nomination  of 
San  Jose,  Guadalupe,  acting  with  two  assisting  witnesses; 

§62.  That  the  ;'  Junta  de  Fomento  y  Administrativa  de  mine- 
ria"  did  have  jurisdiction  or  supervisory  power  in  matters  of 
denouncement  of  mines  where  the  person  denouncing  or  making 
registry,  applied  to  the  Government  to  aid,  contract  for,  or  habil- 
itate such  mine,-  that  said  Junta,  together  with  the  President  of 
Mexico,  did  confirm  the  said  registry  of  discovery  of  said  Castil- 
lero, and  enter  into  a  contract  with  him  for  supplying  and  work- 
ing said  mine;  and  they  deny  that  the  jurisdiction  of  said  Junta, 
either  appellate  or  original,  was  limited  to  a  district  not  more 
than  twenty-five  leagues  from  the  City  of  Mexico;  and  they  further 
deny  that  they  have  ever  claimed  that  said  Junta  exercised  ap- 
pellate jurisdiction  in  this  case  over  any  litigated  question,  or  that 
any  appeal  was  ever  taken  from  the  action  of  said  Alcalde  of  San 
Jose  to  said  Junta; 

§63.  And  these  Defendants  further  say,  that  the  document  of 
grant  claimed  by  the  Defendants  to  have  been  made  to  said  Castillero 
by  the  President  of  Mexico,  of  two  square  leagues  of  land  on  his 
mining  possession,  (called  in  said  complainants'  bill  of  complaint  "  an 
alleged  grant  from  the  President  of  Mexico,'')  is  a  grant  of  said  two 
leagues  of  land,  and  they  deny  that  it  does  not  purport  to  be  a  grant, 
and  that  it  is  a  mere  reference  of  the  matter  to  the  Governor  of  Cali- 
fornia, recommending  him  to  act  thereon  in  pursuance  to  the  coloniza 
tion  laws  ;"  and  they  say  that  said  document  is  not  only  a  grant  or 
title  of  said  two  leagues  of  land  to  said  Castillero,  but  that  it  also  con- 
tains an  order  to  the  Governor  of  California  to  put  the  said  Castillero 
into  possession  of  said  land  so  granted,  and  that  said  document  was 
delivered   by  the   proper  authority  to  said  Castillero,  as  the  proper 


591 

evidence  of  his  title  to  said  land ;  that  these  Defendants  believe  that 
said  document  was  presented  to  the  de facto  Governor  of  California; 
but  if  not  so  presented,  the  failure  to  so  present  it  necessarily  and 
unavoidably  resulted  from  the  operations  of  the  war  between  the 
United  States  and  the  Republic  of  Mexico,  and  the  great  distance  be- 
tween the  city  of  Mexico  and  the  Department  of  California,  by  which 
said  Castillero  and  his,  agents  were  prevented  from  presenting  said  docu- 
ments to  said  Governor  in  time  for  him  to  act  in  the  premises  before 
the  occupation  of  said  Department  of  California  by  the  military  forces 
of  the  United  States  ;  and  these  defendants  deny  that  said  document 
of  grant  to  Castillero,  and  order  of  possession  to  said  Governor  by  the 
said  President  of  Mexico,  (erroneously  described  in  said  complainants' 
bill  of  complaint  as  a  reference  or  recommendation,)  was  "  procured 
so  to  be  made  through  the  fraudulent  concealment  of  the  fact  that 
said  Mine  was  situate  in  lands  claimed  as  of  the  ranch  of  said  J.  R. 
Berreyesa,"  or  through  the  representations  ^called  "  false  and  frau- 
dulent" in  complainants'  said  bill  of  complaint)  of  the  said  Castillero, 
and  of  these  Defendants,  that  said  mine  was  in  the  Mission  of  Santa 
Clara,  and  not  in  the  lands  belonging  to  said  Berreyesa ;  but  they 
severally  believe  it  to  be  true,  and  therefore  so  say,  that  the  said  Cas- 
tillero, in  asking  for"  said  grant,  truly  and  correctly  represented  the 
facts  of  the  case,  to  wit :  that  in  denonncing  and  registering  said 
Mine,  he  had  represented  it  to  be  on  the  lands  of  said  Jose  Reyes, 
he,  the  said  Jose*  Reyes,  having  falsely  and  fraudulently  represented 
himself  to  said  Castillero  as  the  owner  of  said  lands,  under  a  grant  of 
two  square  leagues  to  him  by  Governor  Micheltorena,  whereas  said 
grant  was  for  only  one  league,  and  had  been  fraudulently  changed 
and  altered  by  a  forgery  to  two  leagues  by  said  Jose  Reyes  ;  and 
these  Defendants  severally  believe  it  to  be  true,  and  so  say,  that  the 
said  President  of  Mexico,  at  the  time  of  deciding  upon  said  Castillero's 
petition  for  said  grant  of  land,  had  before  him  full  and  correct  infor- 
mation with  respect  to  the  character  and  extent  of  any  grant  or  grants 
of  land  previously  made,  or  pretended  to  have  been  made  by  the  local 
authorities  in  California  to  said  Berreyesa,  from  the  circumstantial  re- 
ports which  the  Governors  of  California  were  required  by  the  9th 
Article  of  the  Regulations  of  1828,  to  make  to  the  Supreme  Govern- 
ment every  three  months,  of  all  lands  by  them  conceded  or  granted, 
and  also  particularly  from  the  said  Governor  Micheltorena,  who,  these 
Defendants  are  informed  and  believe,  wTas  then  in  the  city  of  Mexico 
and  in  communication  with  the  Supreme  Government,  and  was  called 
upon  by  said  Castillero  for  information  on  this  particular  matter ;  and 
these  Defendants  further  say,  that  said  Castillero,  in  describing  in 
general  terms  the  locality  or  position  of  the  mine  by  him  discovered 
and  registered  as  being  "  in  the  Mission  of  Santa  Clara,"  and  as  being 
"  at  the  distance  of  five  leagues  from  this  Mission  to  the  west,"  did 


592 

so  correctly  describe  in  general  terms  the  locality  or  position  of  said 
mine  ;  and  these  Defendants  aver  that  said  mine  is  situate  in  the  lands 
formerly  designated,  marked  out  and  generally  known  and  understood 
as  Mission  lands  of  the  Mission  of  Santa  Clara  ;  and  they  deny  that 
said  Castillero,  in  so  describing  the  locality  of  the  mine  by  him  dis- 
covered, either  deceived  or  iutended  to  deceive  the  said  Junta,  or  the 
said  President  of  Mexico,  or  any  other  person  whomsoever,  or  misrep- 
resented or  intended  to  misrepresent  the  position  or  locality  of  said 
mine  by  him  discovered,  or  the  character  or  ownership  of  the  lands  in 
which  said  mine  was  situate  ; 

§64.  And  these  Defendants  further  deny  it  to  be  true,  as  alleged 
in  said  complainants'  bill  of  complaints,  that  neither  the  said  widow 
and  heirs,  (meaning  the  widow  and  heirs  of  Jose*  Reyes  Berreyesa,) 
nor  either  of  them,  have  ever  executed  and  delivered  to  these  defend 
ants,  or  either  of  them,  any  conveyence  whatever  of  said  land  or  mine  ; 
and  they  further  deny  it  to  be  true,  as  alleged  in  said  bill  of  complaint, 
that  neither  have  these  Defendants,  or  either  of  them,  ever  paid  to  said 
widow  and  heirs,  or  either  of  them,  any  money  or  other  consideration 
for  such  conveyances  (called  in  said  bill  of  complaint  "  pretended  con- 
veyance ")  ;  and  they  say  that  the  true  facts  of  the  case  are  as  else- 
where particularly  set  forth  and  shown  in  this  their  answer  ; 

§65.  And  these  Defendants  further  deny  it  to  be  true,  as  alleged 
in  said  bill  of  complaint,  that  upon  the  earnest  solicitation  of  these  De- 
fendants, and  their  promise  to  pay  thirty  thousand  dollars  therefor, 
some  of  said  heirs  were  induced  to  sign  an  instrument  prepared  by 
these  Defendants,  purporting  to  convey  the  interest  of  said  widow  and 
heirs  in  said  lands  to  one  Theodore  Shillaber  for  or  on  account  of  these 
Defendants  ;  and  they  say  that  the  true  facts  of  the  case  are  elsewhere 
set  forth  and  shown  in  this  their  answer ; 

§66.  And  these  Defendants  further  deny  it  to  be  true,  as  set  forth 
in  said  bill  of  complaint,  "  that  said  instrument "  (meaning  the  convey 
ance  to  said  Theodore  Shillaber)  "  was  never,  in  fact,  delivered,  but 
was  placed  in  the  desk  of  a  third  person,  and  under  his  custo- 
dy"; and  they  deny  that  said  instrument  was  even  taken  from 
the  custody  of  any  such  third  person  "  without  the  knowledge  or 
consent  of  said  widow  and  heirs,  or  either  of  them,',  and  "  that 
it  was  clandestinely  and  fraudulently  abstracted  by  the  said  Theodore 
Shillaber  from  such  custody,"  and  that  said  Shillaber  was  then  or  at 
any  time  the  agent  or  confederate  of  these  Defendants,  or  either  of 
them,  except  so  far  as  he  was  associated  with  the  Defendant  Walkin- 
shaw  in  the  purchase  hereinbefore  set  forth  and  fully  shown  :  and  they 
deny  that  these  Defendants,  or  either  of  them,  did  as  alleged  in  said 
bill  of  complaint,  "  falsely  and  fraudulently  pretend  to  be  indignant  at 
the  conduct  of  said  Shillaber  in  abstracting  said  instrument "  ;  and 
they  deny,  as  they  have  already  denied,  that  said  Shillaber,  or  any 
person  employed  by  said  Shillaber,  or  any  person  acting  for  these 


593 

Defendants,  or  either  of  them,  or  any  person  whomsoever,  ever 
did  abstract  said  instrument,  as  is  in  said  bill  of  complaint  alleged  ; 
and  they  deny  that  they,  or  either  of  them,  "  represented  to  said 
widow  and  heirs,  that,  for  the  protection  of  their  rights  in  the 
matter,  it  was  necessary  to  cause  to  be  instituted  legal  proceed- 
ings for  the  purpose  of  setting  aside  or  annulling  said  instrument," 
but  they  admit  that  this  Defendant  Forbes  did  offer,  in  the  man- 
ner and  terms  hereinbefore  set  forth  and  shown,  to  purchase  cer- 
tain lands  as  hereinbefore  described,  of  the  said  widow  and  heirs,  in 
case  said  sale  to  said  Shillaber  should  be  given  up,  cancelled,  set  aside, 
or  annulled ; 

§67.  And  these  Defendants  further  deny  that  they,  or  either  of 
them,  ever  offered  to  indemnify  said  widow  and  heirs  against  the  pay- 
ment of  all  and  any  costs  in  that  behalf,  as  alleged  in  said  bill  of  com- 
plaint ;  and  they  deny  that  the  Defendants  Barron  and  Walkinshaw, 
or  either  of  them,  ever  drafted  a  letter  of  attorney  for  the  purpose  of 
authorizing  James  M.  Jones,  Esq.,  to  commence  or  prosecute  said  ac- 
tion, or  for  any  other  purpose  ;  and  the  Defendant  Forbes  has  no  rec- 
ollection of  having  ever  drafted  such  a  letter  of  attorney,  and  believes 
that  he  never  did  draft  such  letter ;  and  these  Defendants  deny  that 
said  letter  of  attorney  was  drafted  secretly,  or  for  the  fraudulent  pur- 
pose of  procuring  the  signatures  of  said  widow  and  heirs,  or  either  of 
them,  to  a  written  instrument  in  which  they  are  represented  as  dis- 
claiming all  title  to  said  lands  and  mine,  or  to  any  other  written  instru- 
ment whatsoever ; 

§68.  And  these  Defendants  further  severally  answering  say,  they 
have  been  informed,  and  believe  it  to  be  true,  and  therefore  so  say, 
that  the  said  widow  and  heirs  employed  the  said  James '  M.  Jones  as 
their  attorney  to  set  aside  the  said  conveyance  to  the  said  Shillaber, 
and,  for  that  purpose,  gave  him  a  letter  of  attorney,  in  which  they  dis- 
claimed all  title  to  the  lands  and  mine  of  New  Almaden,  and  set  forth 
that  said  lands  and  mine  of  New  Almaden  did  not  belong  to  them,  the 
said  widow  and  heirs,  by  any  title  ;  that  said  letter  of  attorney  was 
written  in  the  Spanish  language,  that  it  was  read  to  said  widow  and 
heirs,  and  that  they  were  fully  advised  of  its  contents ;  that  Lorenzo 
Pineda,  the  son-in-law  of  the  said  widow,  and  husband  of  Maria  del 
Carmen,  one  of  said  heirs  and  one  of  the  complainants  in  this  suit,  was 
particularly  active  in  getting  up  said  letter  of  attorney,  and  then  and 
there  read  and  explained  said  letter  of  attorney  to  these  complainants  ; 

§69.  And  these  Defendants  further  severally  answering,  say  :  that 
said  letter  of  attorney  was  given  to  said  Jones  after  the  defendant,  Forbes, 
had  agreed  with  the  Complainants  for  the  purchase  of  the  interests  of 
the  Complainants  in  the  lands  west  of  Alamitos  creek,  as  herein  before 
particularly  described  and  set  forth,  and  that  said  letter  of  attorney 
was  given  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  into  effect  such  agreement  of 
sale  and  purchase  between  the  Compiainants  and  Defendant,  Forbes, 


594 

by  annulling  or  setting  aside  the  aforesaid  instrument  of  sale  by  the 
said  Shillaber ;  that  the  said  widow  and  heirs  in  execnting  said  letter 
of  attorney  to  said  Jones,  were  fully  advised  and  made  acquainted 
with  its  contents,  and  especially  were  they  advised  and  made  acquaint- 
ed with  the  recital  of  clauses  by  which  they  disclaimed  all  title  to  the 
lands  and  mine  of  New  Almaden,  that  said  widow  and  heirs  did  not 
then  pretend  to  claim  said  land  and  mine  of  New  Almaden,  and  that 
said  widow  has  since  frequently  disclaimed  all  title  to  said  lands  and 
mine  of  New  Almaden  ;  and  these  Defendants  severally  deny  that  said 
recital  in  said  letter  of  attorney,  or  any  part  thereof  was  false,  but  on 
the  contrary,  they  say  that  said  recital  was  and  is  true ;  and  they 
further  deny  that  said  widow  and  heirs,  or  either  of  them  executed 
said  letter  of  attorney,  without  any  knowledge  of  said  recital ;  and  they 
further  deny  that  said  widow  and  heirs  executed  said  letter  of  attorney, 
solely  for  the  purpose  of  delivering  it  to  said  Jones  ;  and  they  further 
deny,  that  they,  or  either  of  them  retained  said  letter  of  attorney,  in 
their  own  possession,  either  fraudulently  or  otherwise  ;  and  they  fur- 
ther deny  that  there  was  any  fraudulent  scheme,  between  them  and 
the  other  Defendants,  or  between  them  and  any  other  person  whomso- 
ever, of  depriving  said  widow  and  heirs  of  their  just  rights  or  interests 
in  said  property,  as  in  said  complaint  alleged,  or  of  depriving  them  or 
either  of  them  of  any  just  right  or  interest  in  any  property  whatsoever. 
And  these  Defendants  deny  that  this  "  said  letter  of  attorney  was  not 
read  to  said  widow  and  heirs,"  as  alleged  in  said  bill  of  complaint ;  and 
they  further  deny  that  said  widow  and  heirs  were  advised  of  its  con- 
tents only  so  far  as  it  empowered  said  Jones  to  commence  and  prose- 
cute said  action  ;  and  they  further  deny  that  the  said  widow  and  heirs 
executed  said  letter  of  attorney  without  any  knowledge  of  the  recital 
to  the  effect  that  the  mine  and  lands  of  Almaden  did  not  belong  to 
them  by  any  title. 

§70.  And  this  Defendant,  James  A.  Forbes,  further  severally  an- 
swering, says :  and  these  Defendants,  William  E.  Barron  and  Robert 
Walkinshaw,  believe  it  to  be  true,  that  both  before  and  after  said  sur- 
vey of  Lyman,  and  even  during  the  pendency  of  much  harrassing  liti- 
gation against  the  owners  of  the  mine  and  lands  of  New  Almaden, 
into  which  the  said  widow  and  heirs  have  been  seduced  by  the  false 
and  fraudulent  representations  of  interested  speculators,  who  by  all 
manner  of  fraud  and  artifice,  and  for  their  own  purposes  of  specula- 
tion and  plunder,  have  endeavored  to  poison  the  minds  of  the  said  Ber- 
reyesas  against  the  owners  of  New  Almaden,  the  said  widow  hath  often 
declared  that  she  never  claimed  the  New  Almaden  mine,  or  the  haci- 
enda, and  never  supposed  that  she  had  any  interest  in,  or  title  to,  the 
minerals  or  to  the  said  hacienda  ;  and  that  the  litigation  on  that  ac- 
count was  entirely  against  her  wishes  ;  but  that  the  said  widow  seem- 
ed to  be  under  the  influence  of  some  of  her  sons,  who,  being  violent, 
wicked  and  corrupt  men,  are  willing  instruments  in  the  hands  of  any 


595 

speculator  in  law  suits,  and  ever  ready  to  repudiate  their  most  solemn 
contracts,  and  to  enter  into  any  others  which  may  be  proposed  to  them, 
promising  pecuniary  advantage  ; 

§71.  And  these  Defendants  further  severally  answering  say,  that 
on  the  26th  day  of  August,  A.  D.  1850,  the  complainants  Zacharias, 
widow  of  Jose*  Reyes,  deceased,  Ignacio,  Santiago,  Jose'  de  los  Santos, 
Nemecio,  Francisco,  Fernando,  Maria  del  Carmen  and  her  husband 
Lorenzo  Pineda,  Loreto  and  her  husband  Juan  Bojorques,  Madalena 
and  her  husband  Maximo  Fernandez,  and  Encarnacion,  by  his  guar- 
dian, Wm.  R.  Bassham,  brought  an  action  against  these  Defendants, 
James  A.  Forbes  and  Robert  Walkinshaw,  in  the  district  Court  of  the 
Third  Judicial  District  of  the  State  of  California,  in  and  for  the 
county  of  Santa  Clara ;  and  in  their  complaint  in  the  said  action, 
they  stated  that  their  said  Rancho  of  San  Vicente  is  bounded  on  the 
west  by  the  Rancho  de  los  Capitancillos,  which  boundary  commences 
at  the  junction  of  the  Arroyo  Alamitos  and  the  Arroyo  Seco,  and  runs 
thence  southwardly,  passing  the  hills  or  Lomita  in  the  centre  of  the 
cafiada,  towards  the  east,  to  the  Sierra,  and  alleged  that  the  Defend- 
ants had  trespassed  on  their  said  lands  by  cutting  and  carrying  away 
the  wood,  timber  and  limestone  on  the  said  land,  and  claimed  damages 
therefor  in  the  sum  of  twenty  thousand  dollars ;  that  the  plaintiffs  in 
said  action  did  not  claim  as  the  western  boundary  of  their  said  Rancho 
the  line  which  they  have  falsely  and  fraudulently  alleged,  in  their  said 
complaint  in  this  cause,  to  be  the  western  boundary  of  said  Rancho, 
and  did  not  claim  any  damages  against  said  Defendants  for  any  alleged 
trespass  in  digging  cinnabar,  and  carrying  of  the  proceeds,  and  that 
the  western  boundary  of  said  Rancho,  as  described  by  the  said  Plain- 
tiffs in  the  complaint  filed  as  aforesaid,  on  the  26th  day  of  August, 
1850,  would  not  include  the  mine  of  New  Almaden  in  the  lands  so 
claimed  as  the  lands  of  the  said  Berreyesa,  how  far  soever  said  line 
might  be  extended. 

§72.  And  these  Defendants  further  .severally  answering  say,  that 
after  the  aforesaid  suit  was  instituted,  and  an  order  of  survey  obtained 
from  the  court,  and  an  actual  survey  made  of  the  lands  claimed  by  said 
plaintiffs,  and  upon  which  the  said  complaint  alleged  that  the  alleged 
said  Defendants  had  committed  the  aforesaid  alleged  acts  of  trespass, — 
to  wit,  on  the  30th  day  of  September,  A.  D.  1850, — the  plaintiffs  in 
said  action,  except  the  plaintiff,  Ignacio,  together  with  one  Richard 
Roman  and  one  James  Hepburn,  and  one  Charles  Y.  Stuart,  brought 
an  action  of  ejectment  in  the  said  District  Court,  within  and  for  the 
said  County  of  Santa  Clara,  against  Isidoro  de  la  Torre  of  Mazatlan, 
in  Mexico,  Alexander  Forbes  and  William  Barron  and  Eustaquio 
Barron  of  Tepic,  in  the  Republic  of  Mexico,  and  John  Parrott,  of  the 
City  of  San  Francisco,  in  the  State  of  California,  and  these  defen- 
dants, James  A.  Forbes  and  Robert  Walkinshaw  ;  and  in  their  com- 
plaint in  the  said  action,  they  stated  that  their  said  Rancho  of  San 


596 

Vicente  is  bounded  on  the  west  by  a  line  drawn  from  the  junction  of 
the  Arroyo  Seco,  and  the  Arroyo  de  los  Alamitos,  thence  south  by 
the  eastern  brow  or  slope  of  the  hills  in  the  centre  of  the  valley  to  the 
Sierra,  which  is  a  different  line  from  that  stated  in  their  aforesaid 
action  of  trespass,  and  would  include  the  New  Almaden  Mine,  which 
the  other  would  uot :  and  they  alleged  that  the  defendants  in  the  year 
1845  entered  upon  the  said  land,  and  had  ever  since  been  in  posses- 
sion thereof,  and  had  committed  thereon  divers  acts  of  trespass  by 
opening  and  working  quicksilver,  lime,  and  other  mines,  and  more 
particularly  the  mine  of  New  Almaden,  by  which  said  several  tres- 
passes the  plaintiffs  alleged  they  had  been  damaged  in  the  sum  of  one 
million  of  dollars ;  and  that  the  summonses  in  the  said  cause  were 
served  on  these  defendants,  Forbes  and  Walkinshaw,  on  the  lith  day 
of  October,  A.  D.  1850,  and  on  John  Parrott  on  the  7th  day  of 
November,  A.  D.  1850,  and  on  the  other  Defendants  by  publication 
for  six  months  ;  that  on  the  23d  day  of  January,  A.  D.  1851,  the 
plaintiffs  in  the  said  suit  filed  a  petition  praying  for  the  appointment 
of  a  receiver,  to  take  charge  of  the  accruing  profits  of  said  mine,  and 
retain  them  until  the  question  of  title  could  be  determined  at  law, 
which  was  heard  and  granted  on  the  next  day,  without  notice  to  the 
Defendants  or  their  attorneys,  and  John  W.  Geary,  formerly  of  San 
Francisco,  was  appointed  such  Receiver ;  and  that  said  order  was 
made  by  the  Hon.  William  R.  Turner,  Judge  of  the  eighth  Judicial 
District,  of  the  State  of  California,  who  happened  to  be  then  holding 
Court  for  the  Hon.  John  H.  Watson,  the  Judge  of  the  Third  Judicial 
District,  as  he,  the  said  Judge  Turner,  supposed,  with  the  consent  of 
the  Defendants,  which  was  not  true — that  the  said  order  was  subse- 
quently, to  wit,  on  the  22d  day  of  February,  A.  D.  1851,  revoked 
and  set  aside,  and  that  said  cause  was  afterwards,  to  wit,  on  or  about 
the  28th  day  of  April,  A.  D.  1851,  by  order  of  the  said  District 
Court  transferred  to  the  United  States  District  Court  for  the  Northern 
District  of  California. 

§73.  And  these  Defendants  further  severally  answering  say, 
that  after  the  aforesaid  cause  was  transferred  to  the  District 
Court  of  the  United  States,  the  plaintiffs  in  the  said  cause  filed  a 
bill  of  complaint  in  said  Court,  sitting  as  a  court  of  equity,  in 
which  said  bill  the  complainants  alleged  the  pendency  of  the  said 
action  of  ejectment,  and  charging  the  Defendants  in  ejectment 
with  having  succeeded  by  means  of  various  pretences  and  subter- 
fuges in  causing  great  delay  in  the  progress  of  said  action,  and 
with  having  taken  and  continuing  to  take  great  quantities  of 
quicksilver  from  the  said  land,  prayed  for  an  injunction  and  Re- 
ceiver, for  the  purposes  and  on  the  grounds  that  the  same  are 
prayed  for  in  this  cause  ;  and  that  thereupon,  on  motion  and  no- 
tice, and  on  the  said  complaint  and  the  Defendant's  affidavit,  and 

after  full  argument,  the  said  motion  was  denied  on  the day 

of A.  D.  1852. 


597 

§74.  And  these  defendants  further  severally  answering  say, 
that  after  the  said  decree  was  made,  denying  the  motion  of  the 
complainants  for  an  injunction  and  Receiver,  the  said  complain- 
ants, instead  of  being  thereby  stimulated  to  greater  energy  and 
industry  in  preparing  their  said  action  at  law  for  trial,  and  hav- 
ing their  title  to  the  said  mine  and  land  established  and  the  De- 
fendants ejected  therefrom,  and  the  said  alleged  acts  of  trespass 
and  destruction  and  vast  irreparable  injury  stopped,  have  suffered 
the  said  action  of  ejectment  to  slumber  for  years,  and  have  not 
taken  one  single  step  to  bring  the  same  to  trial  from  that  time  to 
the  present  day,  and  have  not  sought  to  have  their  right  or  title 
decided  by  law  ;  that  meanwhile  the  said  complainants  have  seen 
these  Defendants  expend  vast  sums  of  money  in  building  houses, 
roads  and  bridges,  and  improving  and  ornamenting  the  lands 
around  the  Hacienda,  and  in  erecting  furnaces  for  the  reduction 
of  the  ores  of  quicksilver,  and  have  seen  these  Defendants  export- 
ing large  quantities  of  quicksilver  from  this  State  and  selling 
some  therein,  and  making  many  valuable  and  permanent  improve- 
ments in  the  mine  and  on  the  lands  of  New  Almaden,  thereby 
showing  how  false  was  their  alleged  intention  of  testing  their 
right  at  law,  and  how  false  their  charge  against  the  Defendants 
in  ejectment  of  resorting  to  subterfuges  for  the  purpose  of  delay- 
ing the  trial  at  law,  that  they,  the  said  Defendants,  might  continue 
to  commit  the  said  acts  of  trespass  and  destruction,  to  the  irre- 
parable injury  of  the  Plaintiffs ;  and  thereby  further  showing 
what  these  Defendants  always  believed,  and  now  aver  to  be  the 
truth,  that  the  said  complainants  have  never  desired  to  have  their 
rights  to  the  said  lands  and  mine  of  New  Almaden,  against  that 
of  these  Defendants,  tried-  at  law  ;  but  that  they,  with  many  in- 
stigators and  confederates,  who,  for  the  porposes  of  speculation, 
have  purchased  large  interests  in  said  Rancho  of  San  Vicente, 
and  paid  for  the  same  with  very  small  pecuniary  consideration, 
but  with  large  promises  of  instituting  law  suits  against  the  De- 
fendants and  recovering  heavy  damages,  and  with  many  profes- 
sions of  their  peculiar  qualifications  for  the  conduct  of  litigation 
in  California,  (not  meaning  any  of  their  solicitors  or  attorneys,) 
have,  from  time  to  time,  and  as  often  as  one  sett  of  instigators, 
confederates  and  speculators  may  have  sold  out  to  a  new  sett, 
first  instituted  an  action  of  ejectment  against  these  Defendants, 
and  then  filed  a  bill  in  chancery  ancillary  thereto,  containing  the 
same  statements,  and  making  the  same  charges,  and  concluding 
with  the  same  prayer  as  this  bill,  for  the  purpose  of  exacting 
money  from  the  Defendants  in  the  purchase  of  their  peace,  or  for 
the  purpose  of  selling  out  on  the  streets,  at  a  higher  price,  their 
shares  in  the  suit  at  law  ;  and  these  Defendants  aver  and  charge 
it  to  be  true,  and  are  ready  to  establish  it  by  proof,  that  such  has 


598 

been  the  character  of  the  litigation  by  the  said  complainants  and 
their  confederates,  against  these  Defendants,  for  the  last  six  years. 

§75.  And  these  Defendants  further  severally  answering  say, 
that,  on  the  30th  day  of  September,  A.  D.  1852,  there  was  filed  in 
the  name  of  Andres  Castillero,  before  the  said  United  States 
Board  of  Land  Commissioners,  a  claim  to  the  mine  and  lands  of 
New  Almaden,  by  virtue  of  the  title  acquired  by  the  said  acts  of 
registry,  concession,  and  juridical  possession  ;  and  also  a  claim  to 
two  square  leagues  of  land  around  the  mine,  by  virtue  of  the  con- 
cession made  by  the  President  of  Mexico  to  the  claimant,  as  a 
colonist ;  and  afterwards,  to  wit,  on  the  8th  day  of  January,  1856, 
the  said  Board  made  a  decree,  confirming  the  claimant's  title  to 
the  mine  and  lands,  under  the  said  acts  of  registry,  concession, 
and  juridical  possession,  and  rejecting  his  claim  under  the  coloni- 
zation grant ;  which  decree  is  not  final.  And  these  Defendants 
further  say,  they  are  advised  and  believe,  that  when  the  said 
claims  shall  be  heard  on  the  appeal  which  hath  been  taken  from 
said  decree,  so  much  of  said  decree  as  rejects  the  claim  founded 
on  the  colonization  grant  will  be  held  to  be  erroneous,  and  re- 
versed, and  the  said  claim  confirmed.  And  these  defendants 
further  say,  that  whatever  benefit  or  advantage  hath  accrued  or 
can  accrue  from  the  said  confirmation,  hath  enured  to  their 
benefit,  and  the  benefit  of  their  co-proprietors. 

§76.  And  these  Defendants  further  ^severally  answering  say, 
they  deny  all  and  all  manner  of  unlawful  combination  and  con- 
federacy wherewith  they  are  by  the  said  bill  charged,  without 
this,  that  there  is  any  other  matter,  cause  or  thing,  in  the  said 
complainants'  said  bill  of  complaint  contained,  material  or  neces- 
sary for  these  Defendants  to  make  answer  unto,  and  not  herein 
and  hereby  already  well  and  sufficiently  answered  or  confessed, 
traversed  and  avoided  or  denied,  is  true  to  the  knowledge  or  be- 
lief of  these  Defendants  ;  all  which  matters  and  things  these  De- 
fendants are  ready  aud  willing  to  aver,  maintain  and  prove,  as 
this  Honorable  Court  shall  direct  ;  and  humbly  pray  to  be  dis- 
missed hence  with  their  reasonable  costs  and  charges  in  this  be- 
half most  wrongfully  sustained. 

ARCH'D.  C.  PEACHY, 

Solicitor  of  the  Defendants. 
San  Francisco,  February  11th,  1856. 

United  States  op  America,  )  gcT 
State  op  California.  j 

The  Defendants  James  Alexander  Forbes  and  Robert  Walkin- 
shaw  named  in  the  foregoing  answer,  being  duly  sworn  severally 


599 

depose  and  say  that  they  have  read  the  foregoing  answer  and  are 
acquainted  with  its  contents,  and  that  the  same  is  true  of  their 
own  knowledge,  except  as  to  the  matters  and  things  therein  stated 
on  their  information  and  belief,  and  that  as  to  those  matters  they 
believe  it  to  be  true. 

JAS.  ALEX.  FORBES, 
ROBERT  WALKINSHAW. 

Sworn  to  and  subscribed  before  me  this  11th  day  of  February, 
A.  D.  1856. 

GEO.  PEN.  JOHNSTON, 

Clerk 

[Endorsed.] 

Filed  February  11th  A.  D.  1856. 

GEO.  PEN.  JOHNSTON. 
Clerk. 


DEPOSITION  OF  JOSE  FERNANDEZ. 

United  States  District  Court, 

Northern  District  of  California. 

San  Francisco,  Nov.  6, 1857. 

On  this  day,  before  Cutler  McAllister,  a  Commissioner  of  the  United 
States  for  the  Northern  District  of  California,  duly  authorized  to  ad- 
minister oaths,  &c,  &c,  came  Jos6*  Fernandez,  a  witness  produced  on 
behalf  of  the  Claimant  in  Case  No.  420,  being  an  appeal  from  the 
Board  of  Commissioners  to  ascertain  and  settle  the  Private  Land 
Claims  in  the  State  of  California,  in  Case  No.  366  on  the  Docket  of 
the  said  Board  of  Commissioners,  and  was  duly  sworn  and  testified  as 
folio ws-^-his  evidence  being  interpreted  by  C.  Palmer,  a  sworn  inter- 
preter. 

Present  :  The  U.  S.  Attorney  by  A.  P.  Crittenden  and  Edmund 
Randolph  ;  A.  C.  Peachy  for  Claimant. 

Questions  by  Attorney  for  Claimant. 

Question  1. — Your  name,  age,  and  place  of  residence  ? 
Answer  1. — Jose*  Fernandez ;  58  ;  the  Mission  of  Santa  Clara. 
Question  2. — How  long  have  you  resided  in  California  ? 
Answer  2. — Forty  years. 


GOO 

Question  3. — How  long  have  you  resided  in  and  about  the  Pueblo 
of  San  Jose*  ? 

Answer  3. — This  last  time  I  have  resided  between  San  Jose*  and 
Santa  Clara  since  the  year  1836. 

Question  4. — What  public  office,  if  any,  have  you  held  in  either  of 
said  places,  or  elsewhere  in  California  ? 

Answer  4. — I  have  been  sometimes  Justice  of  the  Peace  ("  Juez 
de  Paz  ")  in  the  Pueblo  of  San  Jose,  and  I  have  also  upon  various  oc- 
casions been  "  Escribano  del  Jusgado." 

Question  5. — Did  you  hold  any  office  in  the  year  1845,  if  so,  what 
office  ? 

Answer  5. — I  was  "  Scindico  del  Jusgado  "  and  "  Escribano  "  of 
the  Court  of  San  Jose  in  1845. 

Question  6. — Who  was  Alcalde  of  the  Pueblo  of  San  Jose'  in  1845  ? 

Answer  6. — Antonio  Maria  Pico. 

Question  7.— Who  in  1846  ? 

Answer  7. — Dolores  Pachecos  ;  I  was  "  Juez  Suplente  "  in  1846. 

Question  8. — Do  you  know  Pedro  Chaboya  ? 

Answer  8. — I  do. 

Question  9. — Do  you  know  his  handwriting  ? 

Answer  9. — I  do. 

Question  10. — By  what  means  do  you  know  it  ? 

Answer  10. — Because  I  have  seen  him  write  his  name  ;  I  believe 
that  is  all  he  knows  how  to  write. 

Question  11. — Is  Chaboya  now  living? 

Answer  11. — He  is  now  living. 

Ques.  12. — Where  is  he  living  ? 

Ans.  12. — About  a  league  from  the  Pueblo  de  San  Jose'. 

Ques.  13. — Look  at  the  document  now  shown  you  marked  "  A.  B." 
to  be  annexed  to  your  deposition,  and  say  if  you  know  in  whose 
handwriting  is  said  instrument,  and  if  the  signature  of  Pedro 
Chaboya  thereon  appearing  is  the  genuine  signature  of  Pedro  Chaboya. 
This  question  applies  to  the  signature  wherever  it  occurs  in  said  docu- 
ment. 

Ans.  13. — The  whole  document  is  in  the  handwriting  of  Salvio  Pa- 
checo  ;  the  signatures  of  Pedro  Chaboya,  which  appear  in  four  places 
on  said  document,  are  his  genuine  signatures. 

(Question  and  answer  objected  to  as  incompetent  to  prove  the  exe- 
cution of  the  document  by  Pedro  Chaboya,  the  document  being  in  the 
handwriting  of  another  person,  Chaboya  ought  to  be  called  to  prove 
that  the  writing  was  on  the  paper  at  the  time  that  he  signed  it,  and 
that. the  said  writing  on  the  paper  was  of  the  date  which  it  purported 
to  be.) 


601 

Ques.  14. — Are  you  acquainted  with  Manuel  Castro  and  Antonio 
Maria  Pico  ;  do  you  know  their  handwriting  and  their  signatures,  and 
how  do  you  know  them  ? 

Ans.  14. — I  know  them  ;  I  know  their  handwriting  and  their  sig- 
natures ;  I  was  with  Antonio  Maria  Pico  as  "  Escribiente  del  Jusgado," 
in  San  Jose,  and  I  have  in  my  possession  a  document  from  Manuel 
Castro  which  he  sent  to  me  appointing  me  "  Juez  Suplente."  My 
means  of  knowing  their  handwriting  were  these. 

Ques.  15. — Examine  the  document  now  shown  you  marked  "  C.  D.," 
and  state  if  the  signatures  of  Manual  Castro  and  Antonio  Maria  Pico, 
appearing  on  the  third  page  of  said  document  are  their  original  signa- 
tures. 

Ans.  15. — I  have  examined  the  document  referred  to,  and  in  my 
belief,  they  are  the  genuine  signatures  of  Manuel  Castro  and  Antonio 
Maria  Pico. 

Ques.  16. — Do  you  know  in  whose  handwriting  is  the  body  of  the 
document  appearing  on  the  1st,  2d  and  3d  pages,  which  is  signed  by 
Manuel  Castro  and  Antonio  Maria  Pico  ;  if  yea,  state  whose  it  is  ? 

Ans.  16. — I  cannot  tell  to  a  certainty  whose  handwriting  it  is  ;  it 
appears  to  be  the  handwriting  of  Gutierrez,  but  I  cannot  tell  to  a  cer- 
tainty. 

(The  same  objection  to  the  questions  and  answer  in  regard  to  signa- 
tures on  this  document  as  were  made  to  question  and  answer  No.  13, 
in  regard  to  the  signature  of  Chaboya.) 

Examination  adjourned  until  2  P.  M. 


Examination  adjourned  until  to-morrow,  Nov.  7,  at  11  A.  M. 


San  Francisco,  November  7, 1858. 

Examination  of  Jose*  Fernandez,  a  witness  produced  on  behalf  of  the 
Claimant. 

Mr.  Palmer  not  being  present,  Richard  Tobin  sworn  as  interpreter. 

Present  :  U.  S.  Attorney,  by  A.  P.  Crittenden,  and  E.  Randolph, 
Esqrs. ;  A.  C.  Peachy,  for  Claimant. 

Ques.  17. — Look  at  the  document  produced  by  S.  0.  Houghton,  a 
witness  examined  on  behalf  of  Claimant  on  the  23d  October,  1858,  be- 
ing the  document  referred  to  in  his  third  answer,  and  state  if  your  ever 
46 


602 

saw  that  document  before  ;  if  you  are  acquainted  with  the  handwriting 
of  the  bodies  of  the  instruments  contained  in  said  document,  with  the 
signatures  to  the  same,  with  your  means  of  knowing  such  handwriting 
and  signatures. 

(The  U.  S.  Attorney  insists  upon  having  certain  answers  and  ques- 
tions written  down  in  Spanish  as  well  as  English.     Agreed  to.) 

Ans.  17. — I  know  the  document ;  I  cannot  say  positively  in  whose 
handwriting  it  is ;  I  know  the  signatures  which  are  at  the  end  of  the 
document,  they  are  those  of  Antonio  Sunol,  Jose  Noriega,  and  Anto- 
nio Maria  Pico  ;  I  know  the  handwriting  of  the  decree ;  it  is  Salvio 
Pacheco's  ;  the  signature  to  the  Decree  is  that  of  Dolores  Pacheco  ; 
I  think  that  the  handwriting  of  the  petition  is  that  of  Benito  Diaz, 
which  is  the  first  paper  in  the  document ;  the  signature  to  said  peti- 
tion is  that  of  Jose*  Castro.  I  have  seen  this  document  before  ;  I  had 
it  in  my  hands  in  the  Court  at  the  Pueblo  in  the  year  1845,  and  in  the 
year  1849  while  I  was  Alcalde  ;  I  do  not  remember  whether  the  paper 
which  I  call  the  petition  was  with  the  other  instruments  when  I  had 
them  in  my  hands  in  the  year  1849.  When  I  had  them  in  the  year 
1845,  I  am  sure  it  was  not ;  the  paper  which  I  call  the  petition  is 
signed  by  Jose*  Castro,  and  upon  which  is  the  Decree  signed  by  Do- 
lores Pacheco  ;  I  think  that  the  handwriting  of  and  signature  to  the 
second  paper  is  that  of  Don  Andres  Castillero  ;  I  think  the  signature 
to  the  third  paper  is  also  that  of  Don  Andres  Castillero ;  I  do  not 
know  in  whose  handwriting  the  body  of  the  paper  is  ;  the  last  paper 
appears  to  be  in  the  handwriting  of  Gutierez,  but  I  do  not  know  whether 
it  is  his  or  not,  but  I  know  the  signatures  perfectly  well,  they  are  those 
of  Antonio  Maria  Pico,  Jose*  Noriega,  and  Antonio  Sunol ;  I  know 
these  signatures  because  I  was  Secretary  to  Sunol  and  Pico,  and  I 
have  had  correspondence  with  Noriega  for  many  years  ;  I  know  the 
signature  of  Dolores  Pacheco,  as  I  was  also  his  Secretary,  and  I  know 
the  writing  of  Salvio  Pacheco  because  I  have  often  seen  him  write  ;  I 
say  that  the  hadwriting  and  signature  of  the  second  paper  and  the 
handwriting  of  the  third  paper,  are  those  of  Don  Andres  Castillero, 
because  they  remember  other  handwritings  and  signatures  of  his  which 
I  have  seen  ;  I  do  not  say  so  becauce  I  have  had  any  correspondence 
with  him. 

Ques.  18. — When  you  saw  that  document  in  1845,  where  did  you 
see  it,  and  how  came  it  into  your  hands? 

Ans.  18. — I  was  Secretary  of  Antonio  Maria  Pico  in  the  Court ;  it 
was  brought  there  by  that  Gutierrez  of  Santa  Clara.  He  said  to  me, 
"  Now  it  is  all  finished,  here  is  the  fee,"  and  he  gave  me  three  dollars 
and  a-half,  and  so  the  document  remained  in  the  Court. 

Ques.  19. — What  do  you  mean  by  that  Gutierrez  ?  is  he  the  same 


603 

i 

Gutierrez  in  whose  handwriting  you  have  said  you  think  one  of  the  in- 
struments in  the  documents  you  have  had  shown  you,  to  be  ? 

Ans.  19. — It  is  the  same  person. 

Ques.  20. — When  you  say  Gutierrez  paid  you  three  dollars  and  a- 
half  as  a  fee,  what  fee  do  you  mean,  and  for  what  service  was  the  fee 
paid  ? 

Ans.  20. — It  was  my  business  to  make  those  documents,  and  Father 
Real  desired  that  they  should  be  made  by  Gutierrez  in  Santa  Clara, 
and  I  believe  that  that  was  the  reason  why  they  sent  me  three  dollars 
and  a-half,  though  I  demanded  nothing  from  them. 

Ques.  21. — When  this  document  was  handed  you  by  Gutierrez  what 
did  you  do  with  it  ? 

Ans.  21. — It  remained  there  in  the  Court ;  I  did  nothing  else  with  it. 

Ques.  22. — Who  was  in  charge  of  the  archives  at  the  Court  when 
you  received  that  document  ? 

Ans.  22. — I  was.    ' 

Ques.  23. — Who  was  Alcalde  of  San  Jose*  in  1849,  if  you  can  re- 
member ? 

Ans.  23. — A  certain  Mr.  May  was  First  Alcalde,  and  I  was  Second. 
Mr.  May  remained  in  a  few  months,  and  was  succeeded  by  a  certain 
person  named  Conroy,  and  we  remained  in  together  until  the  month 
of  April  of  the  year  1850. 

Ques.  24. — During  the  year  1849,  were  you  employed  about  the 
office  of  the  Alcalde  ? 

Ans.  24. — Yes,  I  was. 

Ques.  25. — What  employment  had  you  there  ? 

Ans.  25. — Second  Alcalde. 

Ques.  26. — What  were  your  duties  as  Second  Alcalde  ? 

Ans.  26. — I  attended  to  the  suits  of  all  those  who  spoke  Spanish. 

Ques.  27. — Could  either  May  or  Conroy  speak  Spanish  ? 

Ans.  27. — May  did  not  speak  any,  but  Conroy  spoke  as  well  as  I 
do  myself. 

Ques.  28. — You  have  said  that  you  saw  the  document  shown  you, 
and  that  it  was  in  your  hand  in  1849  ;  state  where  you  saw  it. 

Ans".  28. — I  saw  it  in  the  said  Court,  but  did  not  examine  it ;  I  had 
it  in  my  hands  in  handling  papers. 

Ques.  39. — Was  Pedro  Chaboya  ever  Alcalde  of  San  Jose*  ?  if  yea, 
and  you  can  remember,  state  when. 

Ans.  29. — He  was  Alcalde,  but  I  do  not  remember  in  what  year. 

Ques.  30. — Do  you  know  who  succeeded  Dolores  Pacheco  in  the 
year  1846  ? 

Ans.  30. — I  and  Valentin  Higuera  were  successors  of  Dolores  Pa- 
checo in  the  year  1846.  There  were  four  Alcaldes,  one  first  and  one 
second,  and  one  substitute  for  the  first,  another  substitute  for  the  se- 


604 

cond.  Dolores  Pacheco  was  the  first,  but  I  do  not  remember  who  the 
second  was. 

Ques.  31. — Who  was  the  First  Alcalde,  yourself  or  Valentin  Hi- 
guera  ? 

Ans.  31. — Valentin  Higuera. 

Ques.  32.— Who  was  first  "  Suplente"  ? 

Ans.  32. — I  do  not  remember  who  the  first  substitute  was  ;  I  was 
the  second  substitute. 

Ques.  33. — Who  was  the  first  Mayor  of  San  Josd,  (formerly  the 
Pueblo,)  under  the  laws  of  the  State  of  California  ? 

Ans.  33. — I  do  not  remember. 

Ques  34. — After  the  Mexican  system  of  Alcalde  had  been  replaced 
by  the  system  adopted  by  the  State  of  California  in  the  year  1850,  do 
you  know  what  was  done  with  the  archives  of  the  Alcalde's  office  at 
San  Jose*  ? 

Ans.  34. — I  do  not ;  I  saw  nothing  more. 

Examination  adjourned  until  Monday  morning,  Nov.  9, 1857,  at  11 
A.M. 


San  Francisco,  Nov.  9, 1857—11  A.  M. 

Present  :  U.  S.  Attorney,  by  A.  P.  Crittenden  and  E.  Randolph ; 
A.  C.  Peachy,  for  Claimant. 

Cross-Examination — Questions  by  U.  S.  Attorney. 

Ques.  1. — In  your  30th  answer,  you  say  "  It  was  my  business  to 
make  those  doouments,  and  Father  Real  desired  that  they  should  be 
made  by  Gutierrez  in  Santa  Clara," — what  did  Father  Real  have  to  do 
with  the  business  ? 

Ans.  1. — I  do  not  know  what  he  had  to  do  with  it,  he  was  there  at 
the  mine,  at  the  time  of  the  possession,  but  I  do  not  know  what  he  had 
to  do  in  the  matter. 

Ques.  2. — How  do  you  know  he  was  there  at  the  time  of  the  pos- 
session ? 

Ans.  2. — Because  I  saw  him  there. 

Ques.  3. — Who  was  there  ? 

Ans.  3. — There  were  Sunol,  Castillero,  Pico,  Noriega,  Gutierrez 
and  I,  and  several  others  whom  I  do  not  remember  ;  I  remember  those 
because  I  went,  I  might  say,  with  them. 

Ques  4. — Where  did  you  go  from  ;  at  what  time  did  you  start ; 


605 

what  time  did  you  get  there  ;  how  long  did  you  stay ;  what  happened 
whilst  you  were  there  ? 

Ans.  4. — Suiiol  and  I  went  together  from  the  Pueblo ;  Pico  and 
Noriega  also  went  from  the  Pueblo,  the  others  probably  went  from 
Santa  Clara,  because  they  lived  there  ;  I  do  not  remember  at  what 
hour  we  started,  I  think  it  was  about  9  or  10  in  the  morning ;  we  ar- 
rived there  in  about  an  hour  or  an  hour  and  a-half  after  we  started  ;  we 
remained  there  until  evening,  walking  about  there  and  looking  at  the 
mine. 

Ques.  5. — Did  you  all  go  on  horse-back,  or  did  some  one  of  the  party 
go  on  foot,  and  if  so,  who  was  it ;  did  you  return  the  same  evening  ; 
to  what  place  did  you  return,  and  what  time  did  you  get  back  ? 

Ans.  5. — Gutierrez  went  on  foot ;  we  returned  the  same  evening  ; 
Suiiol  and  I  returned  to  the  Pueblo,  and  the  others  left  us  and 
went  in  the  direction  of  their  homes  ;  we  got  back  a  little  before  sunset. 

Ques.  6. — How  long  did  you  have  to  wait  for  Gutierrez  at  the  mine 
before  he  arrived,  or  did  he  get  there  at  the  same  time  that  the  rest 
of  you  did  ? 

Ans.  6. — I  do  not  know  when  he  reached  there  ;  I  saw  him  there. 

Ques.  7 — Did  you  have  any  conversation  with  him  on  the  road ;  I 
mean  when  you  saw  him  on  the  way  a  foot  ? 

Ans.  7. — I  do  not  remember. 

Que?.  8. — Where  is  Gutierrez  ? 

Ans.  8. — I  do  not  know  ;  I  do  not  know  whether  he  is  dead  or  alive. 

Ques.  9. — When  did  you  see  him  last ;  does  he  now  live  in  Califor- 
nia ;  what  country  did  he  come  from  ;  was  he  living  at  Santa  Clara  or 
San  Jose*  when  you  all  went  to  the  mine  ;  what  was  his  occupation  in 
Santa  Clara  at  the  time  you  visited  the  mine  ? 

Ans.  9. — I  think  I  have  seen  him  since  we  visited  the  mine,  but  I 
do  not  know  where  or  when  ;  I  do  not  know  whether  he  now  lives  in 
California,  I  have  enquired  for  him,  but  have  obtained  no  information 
concerning  him  ;  he  first  came  to  Pueblo  in  the  year  1843  or  1844  ;  I 
do  not  know  what  country  he  came  from ;  I  think  he  was  a  school- 
master at  Santa  Clara  when  we  made  the  visit  to  the  mine  ;  he  lived 
at  Santa  Clara. 

Ques.  10. — Was  not  Gutierrez  a  Basco ;  did  he  not  wear  a  red  cap 
peculiar  to  that  people  ? 

Ans.  10. — I  do  not  know,  he  said  he  was  a  Spaniard  ;  he  was  in 
the  habit  of  wearing  the  red  cap,  which  is  generally  worn  by  the 
Basques,  although  the  cap  which  he  wore  was  different  in  form  from 
those  worn  by  the  Basques,  because  the  one  which  he  wore  was  long 
and  those  worn  by  the  Basques  was  short  and  round  ;  I  never  heard 
Gutierrez  speak  Basque. 

Ques.  11. — Did  this  Gutierrez  ever  make  or  write  more  than  one 


606 

document  at  the  Mission  of  Santa  Clara,  which  it  was  your  business, 
as  the  Secretary  of  Pico,  to  have  made  or  written  ? 

Ans.  11. — He  only  brought  me  one;  I  do  not  know  whether  he 
wrote  any  other. 

Ques.  12. — Did  Antonio  Maria  Pico  return  with  you  and  Sunol  to 
the  Pueblo  ? 

Ans.  12. — I  do  not  remember  whether  he  returned  with  us  or  not. 

Ques.  13. — You  did  not  leave  him  at  the  mine  ? 

Ans.  13. — No.     We  all  came  away. 

Ques.  14. — Where  did  Pico  return  to  on  that  day  ? 

Ans.  14.— To  the  Pueblo. 

Ques.  15. — When  did  you  next  see  Gutierrez  after  coming  from  the 
mine  ? 

Ans.  15. — When  he  came  to  bring  the  papers  which  he  had  made 
in  Santa  Clara  to  the  Pueblo. 

Ques.  16. — Was  that  months  or  weeks  after  the  return  from  the 
mine,  or  how  long  after  was  it  ? 

Ans.  16. — It  was  one,  two  or  three  days  after. 

Ques.  17 — Was  it  three  days  after  ? 

Ans.  17. — I  am  not  certain  how  many  days  it  was,  one,  two,  or 
three  days,  but  I  think  it  was  in  the  same  week. 

Ques.  18. — I  want  to  know  if  it  was  not  the  same  day,  or  the  next 
day  ? 

Ans.  18. — It  could  not  have  been  upon  the  same  day,  because  it 
was  night  when  we  got  back. 

Ques.  19. — What  day  of  the  week  was  it  when  you  went  to  the 
mine  ? 

Ans.  19. — I  do  not  remember. 

Ques.  20. — In  what  month  was  it  ? 

Ans.  20. — I  don't  remember  whether  it  was  in  November  or  De- 
cember. 

Ques.  21. — Was  it  not  in  January,  1846  ? 

Ans.  21. — No.     Because  in  1846  I  was  no  longer  secretary. 

Ques.  22. — How  long  was  it  before  Christmas,  or  after  Christmas, 
when  Gutierrez  brought  you  that  document  ? 

Ans.  22. — I  do  not  know  whether  it  was  before  or  after. 

Ques.  23. — You  have  not  answered  yes,  or  no,  whether  it  was  on 
the  day  after  your  return  from  the  mine  that  Gutierrez  brought  you 
that  document  ? 

Ans.  23. — I  do  not  know  whether  it  was  the  day  after  we  left  the 
mine,  or  whether  it  was  two  or  three  days  after. 

Ques.  24. — Was  that  the  first  time  you  saw  the  document,  when 
Gutierrez  brought  it  to  you  ? 

Ans.  24. — It  was  the  first  time. 


607 

Ques.  25. — How  do  you  know  that  the  document  you  have  testified 
about,  is  the  same  document  that  Gutierrez  brought  you  ? 

Ans.  25. — Because  I  know  it. 

Ques.  26. — Was  the  document  which  Gutierrez  brought  you  all 
signed  ? 

Ans.  26. — I  did  not  examine  it  well. 

Ques.  27. — Did  you  not  read  it  ? 

Ans.  27. — I  did  not. 

Ques.  28. — How  can  you  know  it  to  be  the  same  document  if  you 
did  not  read  it  ? 

Ans.  28. — I  do  not  know.  I  have  seen  it  tumbling  about  with 
other  papers  in  the  Court ;  I  always  saw  it  in  the  desk  tumbling 
about. 

Ques.  29. — Did  you  read  it  when  you  saw  it  tumbled  about  amongst 
the  other  papers  ? 

Ans.  29. — The  superscription  was  what  I  always  read. 

Ques.  30. — What  was  the  superscription  which  you  always  read? 

Ans.  30. — Possession  of  the  mine  of  Santa  Clara,  I  think  it  says, 
I  did  not  pay  much  attention  to  it. 

Ques.  31. — Did  you  read  no  more  than  the  superscription? 

Ans.  31. — If  I  read  any  more,  I  do  not  remember  it. 

Ques.  32. — Then  how  do  you  know  that  this  document  of  which 
you  have  testified  is  the  same  ? 

Ans.  32. — I  imagine  it  is  the  same. 

Ques.  33. — Who  wrote  the  superscription  ;  did  you  write  it  ? 

Ans.  33. — I  do  not  know  who  wrote  it,  I  did  not. 

Ques.  34. — When  you  all  went  to  the  mine,  what  engineer  or  sur- 
veyor did  you  carry  with  you ;  what  kind  of  instruments  did  you 
carry  with  you ;  what  engineer,  surveyor,  or  instruments  did  you 
have  at  the  mine  on  that  occasion  ? 

Ans.  34. — I  neither  knew  a  surveyor,  nor  were  there  any  instru- 
ments whatever. 

Ques.  35. — What  kind  of  measurements  did  you  make  at  the  mine 
on  that  occasion,  and  what  kind  of  work  did  you  do  ? 

Ans.  35. — We  did  no  work,  nor  measurements  either. 

Ques.  36. — How  many  stakes  did  you  drive,  and  if  any,  who  drove 
them  ;  how  many,  and  in  what  positions  were  they  driven  ? 

Ans.  36. — I  did  not  see  any  driven. 

Ques.  37. — Did  you  not  remain  there  with  the  rest  of  them  ? 

Ans.  37. — I  was  there  with  the  others,  sometimes  in  their  company, 
at  other  times  apart  from  them,  other  times  in  the  mine,  other  times 
among  the  bushes.     I  could  not  remain  standing  at  the  same  place. 

Ques.  38. — What  do  you  mean  then  when  you  say  you  were  at  the 
mine  at  the  time  of  the  possession  ;  what  possession  ? 


608 

Ans.  38. — I  did  not  go  to  give  possession.  I  merely  went  in  their 
company. 

Ques.  39. — What  more  was  done  there  than  you  have  said  ?  What 
possession  did  you  see  given  ? 

Ans.  39. — I  only  saw  what  they  said.  They  said  it  is  now  all  fin- 
ished, and  we  went  off.     But  I  did  not  learn  how  or  in  what  manner. 

Ques.  40. — Answer  again  directly  question  39. 

Ans.  40. — I  saw  nothing.     I  did  not  go  to  give  possession. 

Ques.  41. — Do  you  know  the  handwriting  of  the  signatures  to  the 
papers  now  shown  you  marked  "  Exhibit  X.  Y.  C.  McA."  "  Exhibit 
M.  A."  and  "  Exhibit  L.  R."  and  if  you  know,  state  whose  they 
are? 

Ans.  41. — I  do  not  know  whose  they  are,  but  I  think  they  are  Gu- 
tierriez'. 

Ques.  42. — Look  now  at  the  document  of  which  you  have  been 
testifying,  superscribed,  Posesion  de  la  Mina  de  Sta.  Clara,  being  the 
same  produced  by  S.  0.  Houghton,  and  say  whether  the  body  and 
signatures  of  every  paper  in  that  document  contained,  and  especially 
the  last  paper  signed  Antonia  Maria  Pico,  Antonio  Sunol  and  Jose* 
Noriega,  are  not  in  an  entirely  different  handwriting  from  that  of  the 
body  and  signatures  of  the  three  papers  marked  "  Exhibit  X.  Y." 
«  Exhibit  M.  A."  "  Exhibit  T.  R."  ? 

Ans.  42. — The  handwriting  of  the  aforesaid  snperscription  is  simi- 
lar to  that  of  the  papers  marked  "  Exhibit  X.  Y."  "  Exhibit  M.  A." 
and  "  Exhibit  T.  R."  the  handwriting  of  and  signatures  to  all  the  pa- 
pers contained  in  said  document  are  different  from  the  handwriting  of 
and  signatures  to  the  said  three  papers  marked  "  Exhibit  X.  Y." 
"  Exhibit  M.  A."  "  Exhibit  T.  R."  The  signatures  are  entirely  dif- 
ferent, the  handwriting  is  different,  but  I  cannot  say  that  it  is  entirely 
different,  On  Saturday  I  said  that  I  believed  the  handwriting  of  the 
first  paper  contained  in  said  document  was  that  of  Benito  Diaz,  but 
now  I  say  positively  that  it  is  the  handwriting  of  said  Benito. 

Ques.  43. — Is  not  the  aforesaid  superscription  written  with  exceed- 
ingly large  letters,  and  are  not  the  exhibits  with  which  you  have  been 
comparing  it,  written  with  small  letters  such  as  are  usual  in  private 
letters ;  what  resemblance  can  you  see  between  the  very  large 
lettering  of  that  superscription,  and  the  small  letters  of  the  ex- 
hibits ? 


(Examination  adjourned  until  to-morrow  Tuesday,  November  10, 
1857,  at  11,  A.  M.) 


609 
San  Francisco,  November  10, 1857, 11,  A.  M. 

Examination  of  Jose*  Fernandez,  a  witness  produced  on  behalf  of 
Claimant,  continued : 

Present  :  The  U.  S.  District  Att'y,  by  A.  P.  Crittenden  and  Ed- 
mund Randolph  ;  A.  C.  Peachy,  for  Claimant. 

Ans.  43. — The  resemblance  which  I  see  is  between  the  large  letters 
of  said  exhibits  and  superscription.     The  I's  and  J's  are  similar. 

Ques.  44. — Have  you  got  in  your  possession  a  letter  of  Gutierrez', 
or  any  other  writing  by  Gutierrez  ;  if  so,  let  me  see  it  ? 

Ans.  44. — I  have  not.  The  paper  marked  "  exhibit  T.  R."  I  once 
had  it  in  my  possession,  but  I  do  not  know  how  it  got  here. 

Ques.  45. — Will  you  now  look  at  the  paper  shown  you,  being  the 
"  Escritura  de  Compania,"  compare  it  with  the  said  Exhibits,  "  M.  A." 
"  T.  R."  and  "  X.  Y."  and  say  whether  it  is  not  in  the  same  hand- 
writing ? 

Ans.  45. — I  think  it  is  the  same. 

Ques.  46. — Does  it  not  seem  to  you  exactly  the  same  ? 

Ans.  46. — I  cannot  say  that  it  is  exactly. 

Ques.  47. — Have  you  the  least  possible  doubt  ? 

Ans.  47. — I  have  a  doubt  because  I  did  not  see  them  written. 

Ques.  48. — Have  you  any  other  doubt  ?  Are  they  not  written  by 
the  same  person,  judging  by  the  handwriting  ?  Are  they  not  both 
written  by  Gutierrez  manifestly  ? 

Ans.  48. — I  think  they  are  written  by  Gutierrez. 

Ques.  49. — In  your  20th  answer  on  your  direct  examination,  you 
have  said  that  you  asked  them  for  nothing,  meaning  the  persons  who 
sent  you  the  three  dollars  and  a  half  fee  by  Gutierrez ;  who  were 
those  persons  ? 

Ans.  49. — I  do  not  know  who  sent  me  the  fee,  Gutierrez  only  said 
to  me,  "  here,  they  send  you  this,"  and  he  gave  me  the  three  dollars 
and  a  half. 

Ques.50. — Have  you  no  idea  who  the  persons  were  that  sent  you 
the  money  ? 

Ans.  50. — I  have  an  idea  that  it  was  Castillero. 

Ques.  51. — Who  was  entitled  to  fees  for  papers  made  by  the  Al- 
calde ;  the  Secretary  or  the  Alcalde  himself  ? 

Ans.  51. — The  Secretary ;  the  Alcalde  received  no  fees,  nor  pay 
for  making  papers,  even  though  he  should  make  them  himself,  at  least 
I  never  saw  him  do  so. 

Ques.  52. — When  you  were  examined  in  the  Berreyesa  suit  of  To- 
bin  vs.  Walkinshaw  concerning  this  mine,  you  were  asked  why  you 
did  not  sign  the  papers  as  attesting  witness,  and  you  said,  as  appears 


610 

by  the  notes  of  Judge  Hoffman,  "  I  can't  tell  why  I  did  not  sign  as 
attesting  witness,"  and  now  you  say  that  the  papers  were  made  in 
Santa  Clara  while  you  were  in  San  Jose* ;  was  not  that  a  good  and  suf- 
ficient reason  why  you  were  not  attesting  witness,  and  why  was  it  that 
you  could  not  give  that  reason  then  ? 

Ans.  52. — They  probably  did  not  ask  the  question  well,  or  it  is  a 
mistake.  If  I  am  mistaken  it  is  through  ignorance  not  from  design. 
It  is  true  the  papers  were  made  in  Santa  Clara  ;  I  did  not  see  them 
made,  but  Gutierrez  told  me  that  they  had  been  made  there. 

Ques.  53. — In  Tobin  vs.  Walkinshaw,  according  to  Judge  Hoff- 
man's notes,  you  testified :  u  I  and  Castillero  went  together  to  the 
mines,  but  I  don't  know  where  the  others  went  from,"  and  in  this  case 
you  have  testified  that  you  and  Antonio  Sunol  went  to  the  mine  to- 
gether ;  how  is  it  that  you  don't  testify  the  same  way  now  as  you  did 
then? 

Ans.  53. — There  is  a  mistake  in  Judge  Hoffman's  notes,  because  I 
never  said  that  I  went  to  the  mine  with  Castillero ;  I  did  not  even 
know  Castillero  till  I  met  him  at  the  mine. 

Ques.  54. — Did  not  Antonio  Sunol  ask  you  to  go  with  him  to  the 
mine  ? 

Ans.  54. — I  think  he  did  ask  me  ;  I  have  forgotten  that  matter  so 
much  that  I  don't  remember. 

Ques.  55. — Then  you  don't  remember  what  he  asked  you  to  go  there 
for? 

Ans.  55. — He  said  to  me  "  they  are  going  to  give  possession,  come 
with  me  to  the  mine,"  Pico  told  me  the  same  thing.  Have  I  not 
already  said  that  Sunol  invited  me  to  go  to  the  mine  ? 

Ques.  56. — Were  you  not  then  very  much  surprised  on  arriving  at 
the  mine  not  to  see  any  measurements  made,  any  stakes  driven,  or  any 
possession  given  ? 

Ans  56. — No,  because  I  never  saw  possession  given  of  any  mine. 

Ques.  57. — Never  having  seen  possession  given  of  this  or  any  other 
mine,  were  you  not  very  much  surprised  when,  on  the  next  day,  or 
within  two  or  three  days,  Gutierrez  brought  you  the  papers  which  pur- 
ported to  contain  an  account  of  a  possession  given  of  this  mine,  on  the 
very  day  when  you  were  there  present  ? 

(Question  objected  to,  on  the  ground  that  it  takes  for  granted  what 
the  witness  has  never  said.) 

(Objection  withdrawn.) 

Ans.  57.— No. 

Ques.  58. — At  that  time  was  the  "  Juzgado"  or  office  of  the  Al- 
calde kept  at  the  Mission  of  Santa  Clara,  or  at  the  Pueblo  of  San 
Josd? 


611 

Ans.  58. — At  San  Jose". 

Ques.  59. — Have  you  not  seen  on  some  occasion,  possession  of 
llanchos  given  by  Alcaldes,  or  of  Suertes  ? 

Ans.  59. — No,  I  have  not. 

Ques.  60. — Have  you  not  seen  juridical  possession  of  Ranchos  or 
Suertes  given  by  Alcaldes  on  some  occasions  ? 

Ans.  60.— No. 

Ques.  61. — What  time  in  the  year  1845,  did  Antonio  Maria  Pico 
cease  to  be  Alcalde  ? 

Ans.  61. — It  must  have  been  on  the  first  of  January,  1846,  because 
those  who  went  out  of  office  surrendered  it  to  their  successors  on  the 
first  of  January  of  each  year. 

Ques.  62. — Did  Dolores  Pacheco  succeed  him  ?  When  did  Do- 
lores Pacheco  cease  to  be  Alcalde  ?  Who  was  the  first  person  the 
Americans  made  Alcalde  of  San  Jose\  and  when  ? 

Ans.  62. — Dolores  Pacheco  succeeded  Pico.  In  the  month  of 
July  I  went  to  Los  Angeles  with  Castro,  and  Pacheco  accompanied  us 
as  far  as  La  Natividad,  and  from  there  he  returned  to  the  Pueblo,  and 
when  I  returned  to  the  Pueblo  in  the  month  of  August,  I  found  Pedro 
Chaboya,  Alcalde  of  the  Pueblo  of  San  Jose'. 

The  first  person  made  Alcalde  of  San  Jose'  by  the  Americans  was 
called  Captain  Burton.  I  do  not  remember  wThen  the  Americans  made 
him  Alcalde. 

Ques.  63. — How  long  have  you  lived  in  California  ?  From  what 
country  did  you  come  ?  Where  were  you  born  ?  What  was  the 
first  you  knew  about  this  mine  before  Castillero  came  to  this  country  ? 

Ans.  63. — I  have  lived  in  this  country  40  years.  I  came  here 
from  Peru.  I  was  born  in  Cadiz  in  Spain.  Before  Castillero  came 
to  this  country  I  heard  it  said  that  Luis  Chaboya  had  a  mine,  but  I 
did  not  know  where  it  was  nor  had  I  ever  seen  it. 

(That  part  of  the  question  and  answer  which  relates  to  the  witness' 
knowledge  of  the  mine  before  the  coming  of  Castillero,  objected  to  ; 
the  question  on  the  ground  of  irrelevancy,  and  the  answer  on  the 
ground  of  hearsay.) 

Ques.  64. — Is  that  all  that  you  recollect  about  this  mine  before  that 
time  ?  Do  you  not  know  that  this  is  the  same  mine  with  that  of  Luis 
Chaboya  ? 

(Question  objected  to  on  the  ground  of  irrelevancy,  and  also  on  the 
ground  that  it  is  examining  the  witness  upon  a  point  not  touched  upon 
in  the  examination  in  chief.) 

Ans.  64. — I  do  not  remember  any  more.  It  is  said  that  this  is  the 
same  mine  of  Luis  Chaboya,  but  I  don't  know  whether  it  is  or  not. 


612 

Ques.  65. — What  is  your  business  now  ?  Do  you  own  a  Rancho  ? 
Do  you  own  a  mine  ?  Do  you  keep  a  store  ?  Are  you  a  mechanic  ? 
Are  you  a  laborer  ?  Are  you  a  lawyer  ?  Are  you  a  doctor  ?  Have 
you  been  often  a  witness  during  the  last  8  years  ?  How  do  you  gain 
your  livelihood  ? 

(Form  of  question  objected  to,  as  containing  an  unnecessary  num- 
ber of  words,  and  encumbering  this  record  unnecessarily.) 

Ans.  65. — I  have  no  business  whatever ;  I  am  owner  of  a  piece  of 
land  ;  I  am  not  owner  of  any  mine  ;  I  keep  no  store  ;  I  am  a  me- 
chanic ;  I  am  a  laborer ;  I  am  not  a  lawyer  ;  I  am  not  a  doctor  ;  I 
have  been  a  witness  two  or  three  times  during  the  last  8  years  ;  I  earn 
my  living  by  working. 

Ques.  66. — What  piece  of  land  do  you  own  ?  How  much  land,  and 
where  is  it  ?  What  kind  of  a  mechanic  are  you,  and  what  sort  of 
work  is  it  that  you  gain  your  livelihood  by  ? 

Ans.  66. — I  have  a  piece  of  land  in  the  county  of  Santa  Clara.  I 
do  not  know  how  large  it  is.  I  make  a  living  by  cultivating  this  piece 
of  land.     I  am  a  laborer,  not  a  mechanic. 

JOSE  FERNANDEZ. 

Subscribed  and  sworn  to  before  me  this  10  Nov.,  1857. 

cutler  McAllister, 

U.  S.  Com. 

Deposition  taken  subject  to  all  exceptions,  except  as  to  the  form  of 
the  questions. 

cutler  McAllister, 

U.  S.  Com. 


EXAMINATION  OF  JOSE  FERNANDEZ  IN  SPANISH. 

Ques.  17. — Vea  Yd  el  documento  presentado  por  S.  0.  Houghton, 
un  testigo  examinado  en  favor  del  Actor  ed  dia  23  de  Octubre  de  1857. 
Sicido  el  Documento  de  que  se  habla  en  su  tercera  respuesta.  Y  diga 
si  Juana  a  visto  ese  documento  antes,  si  conoce  Vd.  la  letra  en  los 
cuerpos  de  los  instrumentos  contenidos  en  dicho  documento  y  las  fir- 
mas  en  ellos,  y  porque  conoce  Vd  la  dicha  letra  y  firmas. 

Answer  17. — El  documento  lo  conosco  las  letras  no  puedo  decir  figa- 
mente  que  letras  son  conosco  las  firmas  que  estan  al  fin  del  documento 


613 

son  las  de  Antonio  Sunol  y  Jose*  Noriega  y  Antonio  Maria  Pico  conos- 
co  la  letra  del  decreto  que  es  de  Dolores  Pacheco.  Me  parece  que  la 
letra  de  la  Representation  es  de  Benito  Dias  es  el  primer  papel  que  se 
halla  el  este  documento.  La  firma  de  la  arriba  representacion  es  de 
Jose*  Castro.     He  visto  este  documento  antes. 

Lo  tuve  en  mis  manos  en  el  Jusgado  del  Pueblo  el  ano  '45,  y  el  ano 
'49  cuando  esture  de  Alcalde. 

No  me  acuerdo  si  el  papel  que  llamo  la  representacion  estaba  con 
las  otras  instrumentos  cuando  los  tuve  en  mis  manos  en  el  ano  '49. 
Cuando  los  tuve  en  el  ado  '45  estoy  seguro  que  ira  estaba.  El  papel 
que  llamo  la  representacion  esta  firmado  por  Jose*  Castro  y  el  tiene  el 
decreto  firmado  por  Dolores  Pacheco.  Me  parece  que  la  letra  y  la 
firma  del  segundo  Papel  es  de  Don  Andres  Castillero.  La  firma  del 
terco  papel  me  parece  que  es  de  Don  Andres  Castillero  tambien  pero 
la  letra  del  cuerpo  del  papel  no  se  de  quien  es.  La  letra  del  ultimo 
papel  se  parece  al  de  Gutierrez  pero  no  se  si  es  o  no  pero  las  firmas 
las  conosco  perfectamente  son  de  Ant0.  Ma.  Pico,  Jose*  Noriega  y  An- 
tonio Sunol.  Conosco  estas  firmas  por  que  fin  secretario  de  Sunol  y 
Pico  y  he  tenido  correspondencia  con  Noriega  por  muchos  alios  conos- 
co la  firma  de  Dolores  Pacheco  porque  fui  Secretario  de  el  tambien 
y  conosco  la  letra  ole  Salvio  Pacheco  porque  lo  he  visto  escribir  muchas 
veces.  Digo  que  la  letra  y  la  firma  del  segundo  papel  y  la  letra  del 
tercer  papel  so  de  Don  Andres  Castillero  porque  se  parecen  a  otra  letra 
yfirmas  de  el  que  he  visto.  No  lo  digo  porque  halla  tenido  correspon- 
dencia con  el. 

Ques.  18. — Cuando  vio  Vd  este  documento  en  1845  adonde  lo  vio 
y  de  que  modo  obtuso  Vd  la  posesion  de  el. 

Res.  18. — Estaba  yo  de  escribiente  con  Antonio  M\  Pico  en  el 
Jusgado;  alii  lo  trigo  ese  Gutierrez  de  Santa — me  digo  "ya  estatodo 
concluido  aqui  tiene  Vd.  la  paga"  y  me  dio  tres  pesos  y  medio,  y  asi 
quedo  el  documento  ento  en  el  Juzgado. 

Preg.  19. — Que  quere  Vd  decir  cuando  dice  "  ese  Gutierrez"  esel 
mismo  Gutierrez  que  ha  dicho  Vd  que  le  parecia  que  la  letra  de  uno 
de  los  instrumentos  del  documento  que  se  le  ha  ensenado  a  Vd. 

Resp.  19. — De  el  es  ese  mismo. 

Preg.  20. — Cuando  dice  Vd  que  Gutierrez  le  pago  a  Vd  tres  pesos 
y  medio  como  paga,  que  paga  querre  Vd  decir  y  por  que  servicio  era 
la  pago  ? 

Res.  20. — A  mi  me  correspondia  hacer  esos  documentos  y  el  Padre 
Real  hizo  empeno  para  que  los  hicierra  Gutierrez  en  Santa  Clara,  y  yo 
creco  que  ese  era  el  motivo  porque  me  mandajon  los  tres  pesos  y  me- 
dio pero  yo  no  les  pedi  nada. 

Preg\  21. — Cuando  Gutierrez  le  entrego  a  Vd  este  documentos 
que  hizo  Vd  con  el. 

Resp.  21. — Alii  quedo  en  el  juzgado  no  hize  otra  cosa  con  el. 


614 

Preg.  22. — Quien  estaba  encargado  de  los  Archivos  de  Jusgado 
cuando  recibio  Vd  ese  documento. 

Resp.  22.— Yo. 

Preg.  23. — Quien  esa  Alcalde  en  San  Jose  en  1849  si  Vd  se  acu- 
erda. 

Res.  23. — Un  tal  Mr.  May  era  primero  j  yo  era  el  segundo.  Mr. 
May  estuvo  algunos  meses  y  despues  entro  un  tal  Conroy  y  esturimes 
Junlos  hasta  el  mes  de  Abril  de  aiio  '50. 

Durante. 

Preg.  24. — En  el  aiio  144  estaba  Yd  empleado  en  la  oficina  del  Al- 
calde. 

Res.— Si. 

Preg.  25. — Que  empleo  tenia  Vd  alii. 

Resp. — Segundo  Alcalde. 

Preg.  26. — Que  deberes  tenia  Vd  como  segundo  Alcalde. 

Resp. — Corria  con  los  demandas  de  todos  los  que  hablaban  espanol. 

Preg.  27. — Que  si  May  6  Conway  podian  hablar  Espanol. 

Resp.  27. — May  no  podia  pero  Conway  hablaba  espanol  lo  mismo 
que  yo. 

Preg.  28. — Ha  dicho  Vd  que  habia  visto  el  documento  que  se  le  ha 
ensefiado  y  que  estaba  en  sus  manos  en  el  ano  1849  diga  Vd  a  donde 
lo  vio. 

Res. — Lo  vi  en  el  mismo  Juezgado — pero  no  lo  registre  tampoco — 
manajando  los  papeles  les  alii  Jo  tuve  en  mis  manos. 

Preg.  29. — Que  si  Pedro  Chaboya  fue  alguna  vez  Alcalde  de  San 
Jose  y  si  fue  en  que  epoca  se  Vd  se  acuerda. 

Res. — Fue  Alcalde  pero  no  me  acquerdo  en  que  epoca. 

Preg.  30. — Sabe  Vd  quen  era  el  successor  de  Dolores  Pacheco  en 
el  aiio  1846. 

Resp. — Yo  y  Valentin  Higuera  fuimos  successores  de  Dolores  Pa- 
checo en  el  ano  1846.  Habian  cuatro  Alcaldes  un  primero  un  segun- 
do y  un  septente  del  primero  y  otro  suplente  del  segundo  Dolores  Pa- 
checo era  primero  pero  no  me  acuerdo  quien  era  el  segundo. 

Preg.  31. — Quien  era  el  primer  Alcalde  Vd  o  Valentin  Higuera. 

Res. — Valentin  Higuera. 

Preg.  32. — Quien  era  el  primer  suplente. 

Res. — No  me  acquerdo  quien  era  el  primer  suplente.  Yo  era  el 
segundo. 

Preg.  33. — Quien  fue  el  primer  Mayor  de  la  Ciudad  de  San  Jose* 
antiguamente  el  Pueblo  bajo  las  leyes  del  Estado  de  California. 

Res. — No  acuerdo.    . 

Preg.  34. — Despues  que  el  sistema  Mexicana  de  Alcaldes  fue  su- 
plantado  por  el  sistema  adoptado  por  el  Estado  de  California  en  el  ano 
1850  sabe  Vd  que  se  hiso  con  los  archivos  del  Juzgado  del  Alcalde  en 
San  Jose\ 

Resp. — No  se — no  vi  ma3. 


615 

Cross-Examined. 

Preg.  1 — En  su  respuesta  No.  20  dice  Vd  i:  a  mi  me  correspondia 
hacer  esos  documentos  y  el  padre  Real  hizo  empeno  para  que  los  hi- 
ciera  Gutierrez  en  Santa  Clara,"  que  tenia  el  padre  Real  que  hacer 
con  el  asunto. 

Resp. — No  se  que  tendria  que  hacer  el  estaba  alii  en  la  misma  cuan- 
do  la  posesion — pero  no  se  que  tendria  que  hacer  en  eso. 

Preg.  2. — Como  sabe  Vd  que  el  estaba  alii  al  tiempo  de  la  posesion. 

Resp. — Por  que  lo  vi  alii. 

Preg.  3., — Quien  mas  estaba  alii. 

ReSp. — Estaban  Sunol,  Castillero,  Pico,  Noriega  y  Gutierrez  yo  y 
otros  varios  que  no  me  acquerdo  quienes  eran  me  acquerdo  de  aquellos 
porque  fuimos  casi  juntos. 

Preg.  4. — De  donde  fueron — a  que  hora  empezaron  su  viage — 
cuando  llegaron  alii  cuanto  tiempo  se  quedaron  y  que  sucedio  mientras 
que  quedaron  alii. 

Resp. — Yo  y  Sunol  fuimos  juntos  del  Pueblo  Pico  y  Noriega  tam- 
bien  fueron  del  Pueblo  los  otros  man  de  Santa  Clara  por  que  alia  vivi- 
an.  No  me  acuerdo  que  a  hora  empezamos  nuestro  viage — me  parece 
que  fue*  como  a  las  nueve  o  las  diez  de  la  manana  llegamos  alii  en  una 
hora  o  hora  y  media  despues  de  nuestra  salida.  Quedamos  alii  hasta 
la  tarde  y  estuvimos  passando  por  alii  y  mirando  la  mina. 

Preg.  5. — Fueron  Vds.  todos  a  Caballo  o  fue  alguno  a  pie,  y  se*  fue 
alguno  a  pie  quien  era,  si  volvieron  la  misma  tarde  ;  a  donde  se  vol- 
vieron  y  a  que  hora  estuvieron  de  vuelta. 

Resp.  5. — Gutierrez  fue  a  pie  ;  nos  volvimos  la  misma  tarde.  Yo 
y  Sunol  volvimos  al  Pueblo  y  los  otros  se  separaron  de  nosotros  toman- 
do  direccion  de  su  casa.  Esturimos  de  vuelta  un  poca  antes  de  po- 
nerse  el  sol. 

Preg.  6. — Cuanto  tiempo  tuvierron  que  aquardar  a  Gutierrez  en  la 
mina  o  llego  el  alii  al  tiempo  que  llegaron  los  de  mas. 

Resp.  6. — No  si  cuando  llegaria.     Yo  lo  vi  alii. 

Preg.  7. — Tuvo  Vd  alguna  conversacion  con  el  en  el  camino,  quero 
decir  cuando  Vd  lo  vio  en  el  carmino  a  pied. 

Resp.  7. — No  me  acuerdo. 

Preg.  8. — Adonde  esta  Gutierrez. 

Resp.  8. — No  se  ;  no  se  si  esta  vivo  o  muerto. 

Preg.  9. — Cuando  lo  vio  Vd  por  la  ultima  vez  vive  el  ahora  en  Cal- 
ifornia cuanto  tiempo  estuvo  el  viviendo  en  California,  de  que  pais  vino 
el  Estaba  el  viviendo  en  Santa  Clara  6  San  Jose*  quando  fueron  Vds. 
todos  a  la  mina.  Que  negocio  tenia  el  en  Santa  Clara  en  el  tiempo 
mencionado. 

Resp.  9. — Creo  que  lo  he  visto  despues  de  la  visit  a  que  hicimos  a  la 
mina  pero  no  se  donde  fue*  ni  quando.    No  se  si  vive  ahora  en  Califor- 


616 

nia,  he  preguntado  por  al  y  no  me  han  dado  razon  ;  el  uno  primero  al 
Pueblo  en  el  ano  '43  o  '44  no  se  de  que  pais  uno. 

Resp.  9. — Yo  creo  que  el  era  maestro  de  Escuela  en  Santa  Clara 
en  el  tiempo  que  hizamos  la  visita  a  la  mina.  El  vivia  alii  en  Santa 
Clara. 

Preg.  10. — Que  si  Gutierrez  no  era  un  Basco.  No  tenia  el  costum- 
bre  de  usar  una  goma  colorada  como  suelen  usar  los  Bascos. 

Resp.  10. — No  se  el  decia  que  era  Espaiiol ;  el  tenia  costumbre  de 
usar  la  goma  colorada  que  generalmente  usan  los  Bascos  ;  aunque  la 
goma  que  el  usaba  era  de  forme  diferente  de  los  que  usan  los  Bascos 
porque  el  que  el  usaba  era  largo  y  los  que  usan  los  Bascos  son  cortos 
y  redondos  nunca  x  vi  hablar  biscaino  a  Gutierrez. 

Preg.  11. — Que  si  este  Gutierrez  jamas  hizo  o  escribio  mas  de  uu 
documento  en  la  Mision  de  Santa  Clara  que  le  correspondia  a  Vd  como 
eecretario  de  Pico  hacer  o  escribir. 

Resp. — El  no  me  trajo  mas  de  uno  :  no  se  si  ha  escrito  otro. 

Preg.  12. — Que  si  Antonio  Maria  Pico  le  volvio  al  Pueblo  con  Vd. 
y  Sunol. 

Resp.  12. — No  mi  acuerdo  si  volvio  el  con  nosotros  6  no. 

Preg.  13. — No  no  dejaron  Yd  en  la  misma. 

Resp.  13. — No  todos  bajamos. 

Preg.  14. — Adonde  volvio  Pico  ese  dia. 

Resp.  14. — Volvio  al  Pueblo. 

Preg.  15. — Despues  de  su  retenida  de  la  mina ;  quando  lo  volvio  a 
ver  a  Gutierrez  por  primera  vez. 

Resp.  15. — Quando  volvio  a  traer  al  Pueblo  los  papeles  que  habia 
hecho  en  Santa  Clara. 

Preg.  16. — Que  si  eso  fue  semanas  6  meses  despues  de  la  retenida 
de  la  mina  6  cuanto  tiempo  despnes  fue. 

Resp.  16. — Como  dos  6  tres  dias  despues. 

Preg.  17. — Fueron  tres  dias  despues. 

Resp.  17. — No  estoy  cierto  cuantos  dias  fueron  si  fue  un  dia  dos 
tres  dia  pero  pienso  que  en  la  misma  semana. 

Preg.  18. — Quiero  saber  si  no  fue  el  mismo  dia  6  el  dia  siguente. 

Resp.  18. — No  podia  ser  el  mismo  dia  porque  ya  era  de  noche  cuan- 
do  volvimos. 

Preg.  19. — Que  dia  de  la  semana  era  cuando  fueron  a  la  mina. 

Resp.  19. — No  se. 

Preg.  20. — En  que  mes  fue*. 

Resp.  20. — No  me  acuerdo  si  fue  en  Nov.  6  Diciembre. 

Preg.  21. — Que  si  no  fue  en  Enero  '46. 

Resp.  21. — No  porque  en  '46  ya  yo  no  era  secratario. 

Preg.  22. — Quanto  tiempo  antes  de  la  Pascua  6  despues  de  la  Pas- 
cua  fue  cuando  Gutierrez  le  trajo  a  Vd  ese  documento. 

Resp.  22. — No  se  si  fue  antes  6  despues. 


617 

Preg.  23. — No  ha  contestado  Vd  si  6  no  fue  el  dia  siguiente  de  su 
vuelta  de  la  mina  que  Gutierrez  le  trajo  a  Vd  ese  documento. 

Resp.  23. — No  se  si  fue  el  dia  despues  que  salimos  de  la  mina  6  si 
fue  dos  6  tres  dias  despues. 

Preg.  24. — Que  si  esa  era  la  primera  vez  que  vio  Vd  el  documento 
— cuando  se  lo  trajo  Gutierrez. 

Resp.  24. — Esa  era  la  primera  vez. 

Preg.  25. — Como  sabe  Vd  que  el  documento  de  que  habla  Vd.  en 
su  testimonia  es  el  mismo  documento  que  le  trajo  a  Vd  Gutierrez. 

Resp.  25. — Porque  lo  conosco. 

Preg.  26. — Que  si  el  documento  que  le  trajo  Gutierrez  a  Vd  estaba 
todo  firmado. 

Resp.  26. — No  lo  registre  bien. 

Preg.  27.— No  lo  l£go  Vd. 

Resp.  27.— No. 

Preg.  28. — Si  Vd  no  lo  lego  como  puede  saber  Vd  que  el  mismo 
documento. 

Resp.  28. — No  se  ;  lo  he  visto  rodando  alii  con  otros  papeles  en  el 
Juzgado,  siempre  no  veia  en  la  papelera  rodando. 

Preg.  29. — Lo.  sejo  Vd.  cuando  lo  vio  rodando  con  los  otros  pa- 
peles. 

Resp.  29. — La  caratula  de  culmia  era  lo  que  leia  siempre. 

Preg.  30.— Que  era  la  caratula  que  leia  Vd  siempre. 

Resp.  30. — Posesion  de  la  mina  de  Santa  Clara  me  parece  que  dice. 
No  puse  mucho  cuidado. 

Preg.  31. — No  leyo  mas  que  la  caratula. 

Resp.  31. — Si  lei  mas  no  me  acuerdo. 

Preg.  32. — Entonces  como  sabe  Vd  que  este  documento  de  que  ha 
hablado  en  su  testimonio  es  el  mismo. 

Resp.  32. — Me  figuro  que  es  el  mismo. 

Preg.  33. — Quien  escribio  la  carantula  la  escribio  Vd. 

Rep.  33. — No  se  quien  la  escribio.     Yo  no  la  escribi. 

Preg.  34. — Cuando  fueron  Vds.  todos  a  la  mina  que  agruenesor  se 
llevaron  con  sigo  que  clase  de  instrumentos  se  llevaron.  Que  agru- 
nenson  6  instrumentos  tenian  en  la  mina  en  esa  ocasion. 

Resp.  34. — Ni  conosi  agrumenson  ni  habia  instrumento  ninguno. 

Preg.  35. — Que  clase  de  medidas  hicieron  en  la  mina  en  esa  ocasion 
y  que  clase  de  trabajo  hicieron. 

Resp.  35. — Ningun  trabajo  hicimos  en  medidas  tampoco. 

Preg.  36. — Cuantas  estacas  pusieron  y  si  pusieron  algunas  cuantos 
y  en  que  lugares  los  pusiceron. 

Resp.  36. — Yo  no  vi  poner  ninguna. 

Preg.  37. — No  se  quedo  Vd  alii  con  los  demas. 

Resp.  37. — Alii  estaba  con  los  otros,  mas  veces  estaba  junta  con  el- 
47 


618 

los  otras  veces  separando,  otras  veces  adentro  la  mina  otras  veces  en 
el  monte  no  habia  de  estar  un  sitio  pasado. 

Preg.  38. — Entonces  que  es  lo  que  Vd  quere  decir  cuando  dice  que 
estuvo  en  la  mina  cuando  la  posesion,  que  posesion. 

Rep.  38. — Si  yo  no  fin  a  dar  la  posesion  fin  en  compafiia  de  ellos 
no  mas. 

Preg.  39. — Que  mas  de  lo  que  ha  dicho  Yd  se  hizo  alii.  Que  fue 
la  posesion  que  Vd  vid  dar. 

Resp.  39. — No  vi  mas  que  lo  que  hablaron  digeron,  ya  est  a  conclu- 
ido,  y  nos  fuimos  pero  no  supe  como  ni  de  que  manera. 

Preg.  40. — Conteste  Yd  directamente  la  pregunta  No.  39. 

Resp.  40. — Yo  no  vi  nada.     Yo  no  fue  a  dar  posesion. 

Preg.  41. — No  conose  Yd  la  letra  y  las  firmas  de  los  papeles  que 
ahora  se  le  muestra  marcados  "  exhibit  X,  Y,  exhibit  M,  N,  y  T,  R," 
y  si  los  conose  digu  de  quienes  son. 

Resp.  41. — No  se  de  quienes  son  pero  me  parace  que  son  de  Gu- 
tierrez. 

Preg.  42. — Yea  Yd  ahora  el  documento  de  que  ha  estado  Yd  ha- 
blando  en  su  testemonia  y  que  tiene  enciena  una  caratula  que  dice 
"  Posesion  de  la  mina  de  Santa  Clara  y  siendo  el  mismo  quo  presenta 
S.  0.  Houghton  y  diga  si  la  letra  y  las  firmas  de  cada  una  de  los  pa- 
peles continuado  en  ese  documento  y  particularmente  el  ultimo  papel 
firmado  por  Antonio  Maria  Pico,  Antonio  Sunol  y  Jose'  Noriega  no  son 
enteramente  diferentes  de  la  letra  y  firmas  de  los  tres  papeles  marca- 
dos Exhibit  «  X  Y,"  Exhibit  M  A,  Exhibit  T  R  ? 

Resp.  42. — La  letra  de  la  caratula  ante  dicha  es  igual  a  la  letra  de 
los  papeles  marcados  exhibit  X  Y,  Exhibit  M  N,  Exhibit  T  R.  La 
letra  y  las  firmas  de  todos  los  papeles  contenidos  an  dicho  documento 
son  diferentes  de  las  letras  y  firmas  de  los  dichos  tres  papeles  marca- 
dos Exhibit  X  Y,  Exhibit  M  A,  Exhibit  T  R.  Las  firmas  son  entera- 
mente diferentes.  La  letra  es  diferente,  pero  no  puede  afirmar  que 
sea  enteramente  diferente.  El  sabado  dige  que  me  parecia  que  la  le- 
tra del  primer  papel  contenido  en  dicho  documento  era  la  -de  Benito 
Dias  pero  ahora  digo  positivamente  que  es  la  letra  de  el  dicho  Benito. 

Preg.  43. — No  esta  la  dicha  caratula  escrita  en  letra  muy  grande  y 
no  estan  los  papeles  con  los  cuales  lo  ha  estdo  Yd  comparando,  escri- 
tos  en  letra  muy  pequena  como  se  suele  escribir  cartas  particulares. 
Que  semejanza  encuentra  Yd  entre  la  letra  grande  de  dicha  caratula 
y  la  letra  pequena  de  dichas  papeles. 

Resp.  43. — La  semejanza  que  en  cuentra  es  en  las  letras  grandes  de 
■  dichos  papeles  y  caratula  las  "  S  "  y  "  J  "  son  semejantes. 

Preg.  44. — Tiene  Yd  en  en  posesion  una  carta  de  Gutierrez  6  cual- 
quiera  otra  escritura  de  Gutierrez  y  si  tiene  ensene  me  lo. 

Resp.  44. —No  tengo  el  papel  marcado  Exhibit  T  R,  lo  tuve  en  mi 
poder  pero  no  se  como  ha  venido  a  pasar  aqui. 


619 

Preg.  45. — Yea  Yd  ahora  el  papel  que  se  le  rauestra  siendo  la  es- 
critura  de  compania  compare  lo  con  dichos  papeles  marcados  M  A,  T 
R  y  X  Y,  y  cliga  si  ho  es  la  misma  letra. 

Resp.  45. — A  mi  me  parece  la  misma. 

Preg.  46. — No  le  parece  a  Yd  que  es  exactamente  la  misma. 

Resp.  46. — No  puede  afirmar  que  sea  exactamente. 

Preg.  47. — Tiene  Yd  la  mas  minimar  duda. 

Resp.  47. — Tengo  duda  porque  no  los  he  visto  escribir. 

Preg.  48. — Tiene  Nd  alguna  otra  duda.  No  estan  escritos  por  la 
misma  persona  juzgado  por  la  letra,  no  estan  los  escritos  por  Gutierrez 
manifiestamente . 

Resp.  48. — A  mi  me  parece  que  estan  escritos  por  Gutierrez. 

Preg.  49. — En  su  respuesta  No.  20  su  con  testacion  a  la  preguanta 
que  le  hacia  el  Abagado  del  Actor  ha  dicho  Yd  que  no  les  pidio  nada 
con  referencia  a  las  personas  que  le  luviron  a  Yd  la  paga  de  tres  pesos 
y  medio  por  Gutierrez.     Quien  eran  esas  personas. 

Resp.  49. — Yo  no  se  quien  me  envio  la  paga.  Gutierrez  no  me  digo 
mas  que  "  aqui  le  envian  esto  "yme  entrego  los  tres  pesos  y  medio. 

Preg.  50. — No. tiene  Yd  alguna  idea  de  quenes  fueron  las  personas 
que  le  enviaron  a  Yd  la  paga. 

Resp.  50. — Tengo  idea  que  seria  Castillero. 

Preg.  51. — A  quien  le  correspondia  recibir  paga  por  papeles  hecho 
por  el  alcalde  el  secretario  el  mismo  Alcalde. 

Resp.  51. — El  secretario,  el  alcalde  no  recibia  ningun  derecho  ni 
paga  por  hacer  papeles  aunque  los  haciera  el  mismo,  a  lo  menos  yon 
nunca  lo  vi. 

Preg.  52. — Cuando  dio  Yd  su  testimonia  en  el  pleito  de  Tobin  con- 
tra Walkinshaw  relativo  a  esta  mina  le  preguntaron  a  Yd  porque  no 
habia,  firmado  Yd  los  papeles  como  testigo  y  Yd  contesto  por  las  notas 
del  Juez  Hoffman  no  puedo  decir  pOrque  no  firme  como  testigo.  Y 
ahora  dice  Yd  que  los  papeles  se  hicieron  en  Santa  Clara  mientras  que 
Yd  estaba  en  San  Jose' ;  no  era  eso  suficiente  razon  porque  no  firmaria 
Yd  como  testigo  y  porque  no  dia  Yd  esa  razon  entonces  ? 

Resp.  52. — No  me  lo  preguntarian  bien  6  sera  algun  equivoca  siyo 
me  equivoco  es  por  ignorancia  no  es  malicia.  Es  verdad  que  los  pa- 
peles se  hicieron  en  Santa  Clara.  Yo  no  los  vi  cuando  se  hicieron  pero 
me  digo  Gutierrez  que  alia  se  habien  hecho. 

Preg.  53. — En  el  pleito  de  Tobin  contra  Walkinshaw  segun  consta 
por  las  notas  del  Juez  Hoffman  digo  Yd  en  su  testimonio  "Yoy  Cas- 
tillero fuimos  a  la  mina  juntos  pero  no  se  de  donde  fueron  los  otros,"  y 
en  esta  causa  ha  dicho  Yd  y  Antonio  Suiiol  fueron  a  la  mina  juntos. 
Como  se  hace  que  su  testimonio  ahora  es  deferente  a  lo  que  fue  en- 
tonces. 

Resp.  53. — Hay  equivoca  en  las  notas  del  Juez  Hoffman  porque  yo 


620 

nunca  dije  que  habia  ido  a  la  inina  con  Castillero  ni  conosi  a  Castillaro 
hasta  que  lo  encontre  en  la  mina. 

Preg.  54. — Que  si  Antonio  Sunol  le  dijo  a  Vd  que  fuese  con  el  a  la 
mina. 

Resp.  54. — Creo  que  si  me  ;  dijo,  ya  tengo  tan  olvidado  eso  que  no 
me  acuerdo. 

Preg.  55. — Entonces  no  se  acuerda  Vd  para  que  le  dijo  el  que  fue- 
ra  Vd  alii. 

Resp.  55. — Me  dijo  van  a  dar  la  possesion  van  con  migo  a  la  mina, 
y  Pico  me  dijo  lo  mismo. — No  he  dicho  ya  que  Sunol  me  comoido  que 
fuese  a  la  mina. 

Preg.  56. — Cuando  11  ego  Vd  entonces  a  la  mina  no  estaba  Vd  mu- 
cho  de  no  ver  hacersir  medida  ninguna  ni  poner  estacas  ni  dar  posses- 
cion  ninguna. 

Resp.  56. — No  porque  nunca  habia  visto  dar  possecion  de  ninguna 
mina. 

Preg.  57. — No  habiendo  nunca  visto  dar  possecion  de  esta  vio  de 
ninguna  otra  mina  no  quedo  Vd  muy  serprendido  cuando  el  dia  sigui- 
ente  o  en  los  dos  o  tres  dias  siguientes  Gutierrez  le  trujo  a  Vd  los  pa- 
peles  que  pretendian  dar  cuenta  de  una  possecion  de  esta  mina  dada 
el  mismo  dia  que  estuvo  Vd  alii  presente. 

Resp.  57.— No. 

Preg.  58. — En  esa  epoca  estaba  el  juzgado  o  oficina  del  alcalde  sit- 
uado  en  la  mision  de  Santa  Clara  o  en  el  Pueblo  de  San  Jose\ 

Resp.  58. — En  San  Jose\ 

Preg.  59. — No  ha  visto  Vd  alguna  vez  dar  possecion  de  Ranchos  o 
Suertes  por  los  alcaldes. 

Resp.  59.— No. 

Preg.  60. — No  visto  los  alcaldes  alguna  vez  dar  possecion  juridical 
de  Ranchos  o  Suertes. 

Resp.  60.— No. 

Preg.  61. — En  que  parte  del  ano  1845  dijo  de  ser  Alcalde  Antonio 
Maria  Pico. 

Resp.  61. — Seguramente  seria  al  primero  de  Enero  de  1846  por 
que  los  que  salian  entregaban  el  juzgado  a  los  que  entraban  el  dia  pri- 
mero de  Enero  de  cada  ano. 

Preg.  62. — Que  si  Dolores  Pacheco  entro  immediatamente  despues 
de  el.  Cuando  salis  Dolores  Pacheco  del  empleo  de  alcalde,  quien  fu^ 
la  primera  persona  que  hizieron  alcalde  los  Americanos  en  San  Jose*  y 
cuando. 

Res.  62. — Dolores  Pacheco  entro  immediatamente  despues  de  Pico. 
En  el  mes  de  Julio  yo  me  fu^  para  Los  Angeles  con  Castro  y  Pacheco 
nos  acompano  hasta  La  Natividad  y  de  alii  se  volvio  para  el  Pueblo  y 
cuando  yo  volvi  al  Pueblo  en  el  mes  de  Agosto  encontre  a  Pedro  Cha- 
boya  de  Alcalde  del  Pueblo  de  San  Jose.    El  primer  Alcalde  que  pos- 


621 

secion  los  Americanos  en  San  Jose*  se  llamaba  el  Capitan  Burton.  No 
se  cuando  fue  que  los  Americanos  pensenen  este  alcalde. 

Preg.  63. — Cuanto  tiempo  ha  vivido  en  California,  de  que  pais  vino, 
en  que  pais  nacio,  que  fue  lo  primero  que  supo  Vd  de  esta  mina  antes 
que  vinies  a  Castillero  a  este  pais. 

Resp.  63. — He  vivido  en  este  pais  40  anos  vine  aqui  del  Peru. 
Naci  en  Cadiz  Espana.  Antes  que  Castillero  viniesi  a  este  pais  oi  de- 
cir  que  Louis  Chaboya  tenia  una  mina  pero  no  sabia  donde  era  ni  nun- 
ca  la  habia  visto. 

Preg.  64. — Es  eso  todo  de  que  se  puede  Vd  acordar  antes  de  esa 
epoca.     No  saba  Nd  que  esta  es  la  misma  mina  de  Louis  Chaboya. 

Res.  64. — No  me  acuerdo  de  mas  dicen  que  es  la  misma  mina  de 
Luis  Chaboya  pero  yo  no  se  se  es  o  no. 

Preg.  65. — Que  negocio  tiene  Vd  ahora  es  Vd  dueno  de  algun 
Rancho.  Es  Vd  dueno  de  alguna  mina.  Tiene  Vd  algun  Almacen. 
Es  Vd  un  artesano.  Es  Vd  un  homcre  que  gana  la  vida  con  el  traba- 
jo  de  sus  manos  es  Vd  un  abogado.  Es  Vd  un  medico.  Ha  sido  Vd 
testigo  muchas  veces  durante  los  8  anos  ultimos  pasados  como  gana 
Vd  la  vida. 

Res.  65. — No  tengo  negocio  ninguna  soy  dueno  de  un  pedazo  de 
tierra.  No  soy  dueno  de  ninguna  mina.  No  tengo  almacen.  Soy 
artesano  gano  la  vida  trabajando  con  las  manos.  No  soy  abagado. 
No  soy  medico.  He  sido  testigo  2  o  3  veces  en  los  ultimos  8  anos 
gano  la  vida  con  mi  trabajo. 

Preg.  66. — Que  pedazo  de  tierra  tiene  Vd  de  que  tamanos,  adonde 
se  alia,  que  clase  de  artes,  ano  es  Vd  que  laya  de  trabajo  es  el  que 
hase  Vd  para  ganar  la  vida. 

Resp.  66. — Tengo  un  pedazo  de  tierra  en  el  condado  de  Santa  Cla- 
ra, no  se  de  que  tamafio  es  gano  lo  vida  trabajando  este  pedazo  de 
tierra  ;  soy  labrador  ;  no  soy  artesano. 

The  foregoing  are  the  questions  as  put  to  the  witness  by  the  Inter- 
preter, and  the  answers  as  received  from  the  witness. 

c.  McAllister, 

U.  S.  Com. 


622 
Exhibits  to  Deposition  of  Jose   Fernandez. 
EXHIBIT  A.  B. 
No.  1. 
Sr  Alcalde  de  la  Nominaeion  del  Pueblo  de  S.  Jose  de  Gpe  : 

jfflfe* '&?•*•  Gpe'  Jose  Castro  tenite  Coronel  de  caballeria  de 
inSXse°esteyal4ibe?ee.  el  ejercito  Mejicano,  natural  de  este  Depart- 
pacheco.  amto  an^-e  ja  notaria  justificacion  de  V.  com- 
paresco  y  digo :  que  representando  hoy  la  persona  y  dro.  de  el 
Capn  Dn  Andres  Castillero  y  demas  individuos  que  forman  la 
compa  (siendo  yo  uno  de  los  accionistas)  en  la  mina  de  azogue  que 
denuncio  dho  Sr  Castillero,  el  dia  tres  de  Deciembre  de  mil  ocho- 
cientos  cuarenta  y  cinco  y  se  nos  dio  la  posecion  el  dia  trienta 
del  niismo  mes  y  ano  arreglandome  en  todo  a  las  leyes  de  mineria 
titulo  sesto  articulo  primero  en  que  concede  a  los  descubridores 
de  minerales  nuebos,  tres  pertenencias  continuas  6  interumpidar 
con  las  medidas  designadas  pr  ley7  y  pr  combenir  asi  al  dho  que 
tiene  la  compania  da  hoy  pr  deducidas  ante  las  tres  pertenencias  a 
contiuuacion  de  la  primera  mereciendole  que  se  sirba  unir  este 
escrito  al  espediente  de  denuncio  para  que  quede  archibado  y 
conste  en  todo  tiempo.  No  llendo  en  papel  del  sello  correspon- 
diente  pr  no  haberlo. 

A.  Y.  suplico  provea  de  conformidad  en  lo  qe  recibire  merced 
y  justicia. 

Santa  Clara,  Junio  27  de  1846. 

JOSE  CASTRO. 

Es  copia  de  su  original  sacada  a  la  letra  de  el  que  existe  en 
este  Archibo. 

PEDRO  CHABOYA. 


Sr  Alcalde  de  la  Nomination  : 

Andres  Castillero,  Capn  de  Caba  Permante  y  residte  hoy  en  este 
Department  ante  la  notoria  Justificacion  de  Y.  hace  presente  : 
que  haviendo  descuvierto  una  veta  de  Plata  con  las  de  oro  en  terreno 
del  Rancho  perteneciente  al  Sargt0  retirado  de  la  Compa  precidial 
de  S.  Franco  Jose  Reyes  Berreyesa,  y  queriendo  trabajarla  en 
Compa  suplico  a  Y.  qe  arreglado  a  la  ordinanza  de  mineria  se  sirba 
fijar  rotulones  en  los  parajes  publicos  de  la  jurisd"  para  que  llega- 
da  el  tiempo  de  la  posecion  juridica  asegure  mi  dro  segun  las 
leyes  de  la  materia. 

A.  Y  suplico  probea  de  conformidad,  en  lo  qe  recivire  merced  y 


623 

Justicia  :  admitiendo  este  en  papel  comun  pr.  falta  del  selledo 
correspond16. 

Micion  de  Sta  Clara,  Nbre  22  de  845. 

ANDRES  CASTILLERO. 

Certifico  ser  copia  de  su  original. 

PEDRO  CHABOYA. 

Sor  Alcalde  de  la  Nominacion  del  Pueblo  de  S.  Jose*,  Gpe  : 

Andres  Castillero,  Capitan  de  Caballeria  permanente  ante  la 
notoria  justification  de  V.  comparesco  y  digo  ;  que  ensallando 
el  mineral  que  con  anterioriad  denuncie  a  ese  Juzgado  he 
sacado  a  mas  de  Plata  con  ley  de  oro  asogue  liquido  en  precien- 
cia  de  algunos,  y  pr  combenir  haci  ami  dro  le  he  demerecer  a  V. 
que  unido  al  escrito  de  denuncio  se  hasehibe  esta  representacion  no 
llendo  en  papel  del  sello  por  no  haberlo. 

A  V.  Suplico  provea  de  conformidad  en  lo  que  recivire  merced 
y  justicia. 

Santa  Clara,  Diciembre  3,  de  1845. 

ANDRES  CASTILLERO. 

Certifico  ser  copia  de  su  original. 

PEDRO  CHABOYA. 

No  encontrandose  en  el  Departamt0  de  California,  Diputacion  de 
Mineria  y  siendo  esta  la  unica  vez  desde  la  poblacion  de  la  Alta  Cali- 
fornia qe.  se  trabaja  con  arreglo  a  las  Leyes  de  un  mineral ;  y  care- 
ciendo  ademas  de  Juez  de  letras  el  segundo  Distrito  Yo  el  Alcalde  de 
la  nominacion  C.  Antonio  Ma.  Pico  he  benido  acompanado  de  dos  tes- 
tigos  pa.  actuar  pr*  receptoria,  a  falta  de  Escribano  Publico  qe.  no  le 
hay,  para  dar  posecion  juridica  de  la  mina  conocida  con  el  nombre  de 
Santa  Clara  en  esta  jurisd11  situada  en  el  Rancho  del  Sargento  Jose 
Reyes  Berreyesa,  pr  que  haviendo  perecido  el  tiempo  que  senala 
la  ordenanza  de  mineria  para  deducir  su  accion  el  C.  Andres  Cas- 
tillero y  que  otras  pudiesen  alegar  mejor  dro  desde  el  tiempo  de- 
nuncio a  la  fecha ;  y  encontrandose  dho  mineral  con  abundancia  de 
metales,  crystalados,  el  poso  echo  con  las  reglas  del  Arte,  y  produci- 
endo  la  elaboracion  de  la  mina  abundancia  de  Azogue  liquido  segun  las 
muestras  que  tiene  el  Juzgado,  y  estando  tan  recomendado  por  Leyes 
vigentes  la  proteccion  de  un  articulo  tan  necesario  para  la  amalgansa- 
cion  de  oro,  y  plata  en  la  Republica  he  venido  en  consederle  tres  mil 
varas  pr.  todos  rumbos  a  reserva  de  lo  que  sefiale  la  ordenanza  Gral  de 


624 

Mineria  pr.  ser  trabajada  en  Compailia  de  lo  que  doy  fe"  ;  firmando  con 
migo  los  testigos  y  quedando  agregado  este  acto  de  posecion  al  cumulo 
del  espediente  que  queda  depositado  en  el  archibo  de  mi  cargo  no  lien- 
do  puesto  en  el  Papel  del  Sello  respectibo  qe.  no  le  ay  en  los  terminos 
de  la  ley. 

Juzgado  de  S.  Jose*  Gpe  Diciembre  de  mil  ochocientos  cua- 

renta  y  cinco. 

ANTONIO  M\  PICO. 

de  asista.  de  asisfc*. 

Antonio  Sunol.  Jose  Noriega. 

Certifico  ser  copia  de  su  original  sacado  a  la  letra  pr.  los  autos  orig- 
inales  que  existen  en  este  archibo  y  para  su  constancia  lo  firmo  a  trece 
de  Agto  de  mil  ochocientos  cuarenta  y  seis. 

PEDRO  CHABOYA. 

(Endorsed) 

Diligencias  en  el  Registro. 


EXHIBIT  "  C.  D." 

No.  2. 


Escritura  de  Compaiiia  que  el  Sr  Dn  Andres  Castillero,  Capitan  de 
Cavalleria  permanente,  celebra  con  el  Sor  Comandante  General  Dn 
Jose*  Castro,  los  Sres  Secundino  Robles,  Teodoro  Robles,  y  una  Sesion 
voluntaria  que  han  hecho  los  Companeros  perpetuamente  al  R.  P.  F. 
Jose  Ma  del  Refugio  Suares  del  Real,  de  una  Mina  de  Plata  con  ley 
de  Oro  y  Azogue,  en  el  Rancho  de  Dn.  Jose  Reyes  Berreyesa  en  la 
jurisdiccion  del  Pueblo  de  San  Jose*  de  Guadalupe. 

Artioulo  1°. — El  Sr  Dn  Andres  Castillero  arreglandose  en  un  todo 
a.  la  ordenanza  de  Mineria  hace  formal  Compania  perpetuamente  con 
los  mencionados  Sres  en  esta  forma  la  mitad  de  la  mina,  que  es  de  la 
que  puede  disponer  se  dividira  en  tres  acciones  en  esta  forma  cuatro 
Barras,  al  Sr  Comte  General  cuatro  Barras  y  los  Sres.  Secundino  y 
Teodoro  Robles,  y  las  otras  cuatro  al  Reberendo  Padre  Fr  Jose'  Ma. 
del  Refugio  Z.  del  Real  en  clase  donacion  perpetua. 

Artioulo  2°. — Ninguno  de  los  companeros  podra  bender  6  enagenar 


625 

ninguna  de  sus  acciones  de  manera  q.  el  que  verificare  dicha  enagena- 
cion  perdera  su  derecho  quedando  resumida  en  los  demas  companeros. 

Art0.  3°. — Los  gastos  se  haron  en  proportion  a  las  acciones  llevan- 
dose  una  cuenta  formal  por  un  contador  que  se  pagara  del  fondo  co- 
mun. 

Art0.  4°. — Arreglandose  en  un  todo  &  lo  que  previene  la  Ordenanza 
de  Mineria,  cualquier  diferencia  se  rosolvera  por  los  mismos  compa- 
neros. 

Art0.  5°. — Dirigira  las  Labores,  y  gastos  y  travajos  de  la  mina,  Dn. 
Andres  Castillero  y  en  su  defecto  el  R.  P.  Fr  Jose  Ma.  del  R.  Z.  del 
Real. 

Art0.  6°. — No  se  extraera  de  los  productos  mas  cantidades  que  los 
que  se  necesiten  para  el  arreglo  de  la  negociacion  hasta  que  se  arre- 
glen  los  travajos,  y  cualquier  cantidad  que  sea  ha  de  ser  con  consenti- 
miento  de  todos  los  companeros  hasta  que  este  arreglada  la  negocia- 
cion. 

Art0.  7°. — Estos  combinios,  se  autorizaran  a  presencia  del  Sr.  Pre- 
fecto  del  2°.  Distrito  Dn.  Manuel  Castro,  depositandose  el  documto  ori- 
ginal en  el  archivo  del  partido,  j  dandose  una  copia  certificada  por  S. 
Sa.  a  los  interesados. 

Mision  de  Santa  Clara  dos  de  Noviembre  de  mil  ochocientos  cua- 
renta  y  cinco. 

ANDRES  CASTILLERO. 

Por  el  Sr.  Comtc.  Gen1.  Dn.  Jose*  Castro. 

ANDRES  CASTILLERO. 
Fr  JOSE  MA.  del  R.  S.  del  REAL. 

Por  Secundino  y  Teodoro  Robles, 

FRANC0.  ARCE. 

Es  copia  fiel  del  Original  a  la  que  me  remito. 
Mision  de  Santa  Clara  Diciembre  ocho  de  mil  ochocientos  cuarenta 
y  cinco. 
MANL.  CASTRO. 

ANTONIO  M\  PICO. 


626 


Sello  Cuarto 


un  Real. 


Jesus  Vejab,  Escribano  Publico. 

Certifico  y  doy  fe  que  las  firmas  que  preseden  de  Don  Manuel 
Castro  y  Don  Antonio  Maria  Pico  autorizando  el  presedente  documen- 
to  de  Compania  entre  los  priniitivos  duenos  de  la  Mina  Santa  Clara  en 
la  Alta  California  las  he  visto  iguales  en  otros  documentos  que  me  han 
sido  presentados  en  la  Casa  de  los  Senores  Barron,  Forbes  y  Compa- 
nia, y  ademas  las  ha  dado  por  ciertas  reconociendolas  por  del  puno  y 
letra  de  los  mismos  el  Senor  Don  Andres  Castillero  por  actos  que  ante 
mi  otorg6 ;  y  por  esta  razon  se  Juzga  por  este  oficio  que  dichas  firmas 
son  las  mismas  que  aconstumbran  aquellos  Senores.  Y  4  pedimiento 
de  las  repetidos  Barron  Forbes  y  Compania  signo  y  firmo  el  presente 
en  Tepic  a  quince  de  Marzo  de  mil  ochocientos  cincuenta. 

JESUS  VEJAR. 

El  Alcalde  1°  Constitucional  y  Escribano  Publico  que  firmamos, 
Certificamos  y  damos  fe  que  el  signo  y  firma  que  antecede,  es  el  que 
uso  y  aconstumbra  el  Escribano  Don  Jesus  Vejar  eu  todos  los  actos  que 
ante  el  pasan. 

Asi  lo  comprovamos  en  Tepic  a  quince  de  Marzo  de  mil  ochocientos 
cincuenta. 

LORETO  CORONA. 

EUSEBIO  FERNANDEZ. 


Consulate  of  the  United  States. 
I  George  W.  P.  Bissell,  Consul  of  the  United  States  of  North 


627 

America,  for  this  district,  hereby  certify  that  the  signatures  attached 
to  the  foregoing  document  are  in  the  true  handwriting  of  the  subscrib- 
ers who  legally  hold  the  situations  therein  represented  and  are  worthy 
of  all  faith  and  credit. 

, v       In  testimony  whereof  I  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  seal  of 

\  L.  S.  {  office  in  the  City  of  Tepic  this  first  day  of  December  in  the 
'  — —  '  year  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  fifty. 

G.  W.  P.  BISSELL, 

U.S.  Consul 


EXHIBIT  "  T.  R." 

No.  3. 

Recibi  del  Sindico  Precurador  cuatro  pesos  en  cuenta  de  Mayor 
Cantidad  que  se  me  debe  por  el  desempeno  de  secret0,  que  fuy  en 
*  este  Juzgado. 
§       Sn  Jose  Guade.  Mzo  4,  1846. 

A.  GUTIERREZ. 


EXHIBIT  "M.  A. 


En  mi  nota  anterior  que  le  tengo  A.  V.  remitida  sobre  el  pago  que 
deben  de  hacer  los  padres  que  tienen  hijos,  en  esta  Escuela  :  yo  cre- 
yendo  que  hoy  verificarian  dicho  pago,  y  al  contrario  no  han  efectuado 
nada  de  lo  dicho  ;  y  por  tanto  espero  de  su  mucha  adtividad  los  exija 
sin  falta  alguna  &  que  berifiquen  el  so  dicho  pago,  pues  como  dye*  en 
mi  anterior  si  se  les  deja  pasar  mas  tiempo  se  les  ara  much  mas  pe- 
noso. 

iSi  despues  que  hagan  su  correspond16,  pago  quieren  retirar  sus  hijos 
bien  lo  pueden,  hacer  pero  advirtiendo  que  paguen  primero  lo  que  ele- 
ven segun  lista,  o  cuenta  que  tengo  pasada  a  hese  Juzgado  de  su 
Uarga. 

Dios  y  Libertad. 

Marzo  9  de  1846. 

A.  GUTIERREZ. 

Sr  Juez  de  la  nominacion  de  Sn.  Jose*  Guade.  Dn  Dolores  Pacheco 


628 
EXHIBIT  "  X.  Y." 

Sr.  Alck.  de  1a  Nominacion. 

Haviendo  dirijido  mi  Nota  oficial  con  fecha  8,  del  actual  a  ese*  Juz- 
gado  de  su  Cargo,  referente  a  la  sucriciou  que  deven  de  hacer  los  Pa- 
dres que  tienen  sus  hijos,  en  este  Establict0  de  primeras  letras  :  vuelvo 
aresterar  a  V.  de  nuevo  para  que  se  sirva  tomarse  la  molestia  de  inti- 
marles  que  saguen  lo  que  les  corresponde  por  el  mes  vencido,  y  para 
este  efecto  tiene  V.  la  lista  del  numero  de  jovenes  en  ese*  Juzgado  y 
per  ella  espero  de  su  adtividad  exija  al  pago  a  los  Padres  de  los  jove- 
nes que  estan  a  mi  Cargo. 

Dios  y  Ley. 

Pueblo  de  Sn.  Jose*  Guade.  Fbro  12  de  1846. 

A.  GUTIERREZ. 

Sr  Alce  de  la.  Norn11  de  Sn.  Jose*  Guade.  Dn  Dolores  Pacheco. 


DEPOSITION  OF  ANTONIO  MARIA  PICO. 

United  States  District  Court,         ] 
Northern  District  of  California.  J 

San  Francisco,  November  11, 1857. 

On  this  day,  before  Cutler  McAllister,  a  Commissioner  of  the 
United  States  for  the  Northern  District  of  California,  duly  authorized 
to  administer  oaths,  &c,  &c,  came  Antonio  Maria  Pico,  a  witness 
produced  on  behalf  of  the  Claimants  in  Case  No.  420,  being  an  appeal 
from  the  Board  of  Commissioners  to  ascertain  and  settle  the  Private 
Land  Claims  in  the  State  of  California,  in  Case  No.  366  on  the  Docket 
of  the  said  Board  of  Commissioners,  and  was  duly  sworn  and  testified 
as  follows — his  evidence  being  interpreted  by  Richard  Tobin,  a  sworn 
interpreter. 

Present  :  The  United  States  Attorney  by  Edmund  Randolph  ;  A. 
C.  Peachy  for  Claimants. 

Questions  by  Attorney  for  Claimant. 

Question  1. — Your  name,  age,  and  place  of  residence  ? 
Answer  1. — Antonio  Maria  Pico  ;   48  ;   I  live  at  San  Jose  in  the 
County  of  Santa  Clara. 


629 

Ques.  2. — How  long  have  you  lived  in  California  ?  How  long  in 
San  Jose  ?     What  public  offices,  if  any,  have  you  held  ? 

Ans.  2. — I  was  born  in  California,  and  I  have  lived  here  ever  since. 
I  have  lived  in  San  Jose  since  the  year  1852.  In  the  year  1835,  I 
was  Alcalde  at  San  Jose.  In  1844  and  1845  I  was  also  Alcalde  of 
S«n  Jose*.  And  in  1849  I  was  Prefect  of  San  Jose*.  I  was  also  a 
Captain  in  the  Military  Organization  of  California. 

Ques.  3. — Look  at  the  Documents  marked  "  C.  D."  and  "  A.  B." 
annexed  to  the  deposition  of  Jose  Fernandez,  a  witness  produced  on 
behalf  of  the  Claimants  on  the  6th  November  1857,  and  say  if  you  are 
acquainted  with  the  handwriting  and  signatures  of  the  various  instru- 
ments contained  in  those  documents,  and  state  your  means  of 
knowing  them. 

Ans.  3. — The  paper  marked  "  C.  D."  is  in  the  handwriting  of 
Gutierrez ;  the  signatures  to  it  are  those  of  Manuel  Castro  and  myself. 
The  certificat?s  appearing  on  the  stamped  paper  on  the  third  sheet  of 
Exhibit  "  C.  D."  and  signed  by  Jesus  Vejar,  Eusebio  Fernandez, 
Loreto  Corona,  and  G.  W.  P.  Bissell,  are  written  and  signed  by  par- 
ties whose  handwriting  and  signatures  I  am  not  acquainted  with.  The 
Exhibit  "  A.  B."  is  in  the  handwriting  of  Salvio  Pacheco,  and  the  sig- 
natures to  it  are  those  of  Pedro  Chaboya.  I  know  the  handwriting  of 
Pacheco  and  Chaboya  because  I  have  seen  them  write.  I  also  know 
the  signature  of  Castro  because  I  have  seen  him  write. 

Ques.  4. — Was  the  signature  of  Manuel  Castro  on  said  Document ' 
Exhibit  "  C.  D."  above  referred  to,  made  in  your  presence  by  the  said 
Castro,  at  the  time  it  purports  to  have  been  written,  and  was  your 
name  signed  by  yourself  at  that  time  to  the  said  Document  ? 

Ans.  4. — Yes. 

Ques.  5. — Look  at  the  Document  now  shown  you  bearing  the  super- 
scription "  Posesion  de  la  Mina  de  Sta  Clara.  Ano  de  1845," 
being  the  document  produced  by  S.  0.  Houghton,  a  witness  produced 
on  behalf  of  the  claimant,  on  his  examination  taken  in  this  case  on  the 
23d  October,  1857,  and  being  referred  to  by  the  said  Houghton  in 
his  third  answer  on  his  direct  examination,  and  state,  if  you  can,  in 
whose  handwriting  are  the  various  instruments  in  the  said  document 
contained,  and  whose  are  the  signatures  to  said  instrument,  and  if  the 
said  signatures  are  genuine,  with  your  means  of  knowing  them  to 
be  so. 

Ans.  5. — The  Decree  on  the  Margin  of  the  first  paper  in  this  docu- 
ment is  in  the  handwriting  of  Salvio  Pacheco,  the  signature  to  it  is 
that  of  Dolores  Pacheco.  The  signature  to  the  first  paper  is  that  of 
Jose"  Castro,  the  handwriting  of  the  first  paper  in  form  resembles  that 
of  Benito  Dias  ;  the  handwriting  of  the  second  paper  is  that  of  a  person 
named  Castaneda,  the  signature  to  it  is  Castillero's  ;  the  handwriting  of 
the  third  paper  I  think  has  some  resemblance  in  form  to  that  of  Benito 


630 

Dias,  I  cannot  say  positively  that  it  is  his,  because  there  were  a  great 
many  persons  who  took  part  in  the  writing  of  the  papers  connected 
with  this  transaction  ;  the  signature  to  the  third  paper  is  that  of  Andres 
Castillero.  I  have  an  idea  that  the  fourth  paper  is  in  the  handwriting 
of  Gutierrez,  the  signatures  to  it  are  those  of  Antonio  Sunol,  Jose* 
Noriega  and  myself.  I  know  the  handwriting  of  Salvio  Pacheco  be- 
cause he  was  officially  connected  with  me  in  the  Courts.  I  know  the 
signature  of  Dolores  Pacheco,  because  I  have  seen  him  write  when  he 
was  Alcalde.  I  believe  the  handwriting  of  the  first  paper  to  resemble 
the  handwriting  of  Benito  Dias,  because  I  have  seen  him  write,  though 
not  frequently.  I  am  not  willing  to  swear  positively  that  it  is  the  hand- 
writing of  Benito  Dias,  it  also  bears  a  slight  resemblance  to  the  hand- 
writing of  Castaneda,  the  handwriting  of  Dias  was  not  always  uniform. 
I  know  the  signature  of  Jose*  Castro  because  I  had  official  intercourse 
with  him  when  I  was  Alcalde,  at  one  time  he  used  to  make  a  flourish 
to  his  signature  differently  from  what  he  subsequently  made,  but  still  I 
know  his  signature.  I  know  the  handwriting  of  Castaneda  officially 
when  he  was  Secretary  of  Gen.  Castro.  I  cannot  state  positively  in 
whose  handwriting  the  third  paper  is,  but  the  signature  to  it  I  know  to 
be  the  signature  of  Andres  Castillero  because  I  have  seen  him  sign 
his  name  often.  The  handwriting  of  the  paper  itself  may  also  be  Cas- 
tillero's.  I  know  the  handwriting  of  Gutierrez  because  when  I  was 
Alcalde  I  employed  him  to  write  for  me,  at  the  time  of  the  possession. 
I  have  also  seen  him  write.  I  know  the  signature  of  Antonio  Sunol, 
and  Jose'  Noriega,  because  they  were  signed  in  my  presence  as  wit- 
nesses. 

Ques.  6. — Was  the  document  signed  by  yourself  as  Alcalde,  and  by 
Sunol  and  Noriega  as  attesting  witnesses,  said  document  being  the  last 
of  those  contained  in  the  document  referred  to,  signed  by  yourself  and 
the  said  attending  witnesses  at  the  time  it  purports  to  have  been 
made  ? 

Ans.  6. — Yes.     It  was. 

Ques.  7. — Examine  again  the  handwriting  of  the  body  of  the  last 
named  instrument  attentively,  and  state  with  what  degree  of  certainty 
you  believe  it  to  be  in  the  handwriting  of  Gutierrez  ? 

Ans.  7. — I  consider  it  the  handwriting  of  Gutierrez,  but  I  think  it 
was  written  rapidly,  he  wrote  slowly  or  rapidly  as  he  chose. 

Ques.  8. — Was  Pedro  Chaboya  ever  Alcalde  of  San  Josd,  and  if 
he  was,  at  what  time  ? 

Ans.  8. — In  1846  he  acted  as  Alcalde  together  with  Pacheco.  He 
was  Alcalde  or  Justice  of  the  Peace.  He  was  also  Alcalde  at  other 
times.  He  was  in  authority  in  1846,  I  think  he  was  acting  as  sub- 
stitute. 

Ques.  9. — Are  Antonio  Sunol  and  Jose*  Noriega,  the  attesting  wit- 
nesses to  the  last  instrument   in  writing  in  the  document  concerning 


631 

which  you  have  been  testifying,  still  living,  and  if  yea,  where  do  they 
reside  ? 

Ans.  9. — They  are  both  alive,  living  in  San  Jose*. 

Cross  Examination. — Questions  by  United  States  Attorney. 

Ques.  1. — When  was  the  first  time  you  ever  heard  of  this  mine  ? 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans.  1. — The  first  I  heard  were  conversations  with  Pedro  and 
Luis  Chaboya,  and  Robles  ;  on  different  occasions  afterwards  Suiiol  told 
me  that  he  had  assisted  them  by  giving  them  several  things  to  see  if 
they  could  ascertain  what  kind  of  metal  that  was,  and  they  never  could 
ascertain  what  it  was. 

Ques.  2. — About  those  times  did  you  never  hear  anybody  else  speak 
of  this  mine,  was  it  a  secret  between  the  Chaboyas,  Sunol,  and  your- 
self, or  was  it  commonly  talked  of? 

(Objected  to.)      -    - 

And.  2. — It  was  commonly  talked  of. 

Ques.  3. — How  long  ago  is  it  since  it  was  commonly  talked  of? 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans.  3. — A  great  many  years  since. 

Ques.  4. — About  how.  many  years,  beginning  with  about  what  year? 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans.  4. — I  first  heard  the  mine  spoken  of  in  the  year  1835*  in  the 
year  1845,  when  Castillero  first  came  to  San  Jose,  the  matter  had  been 
forgotten  there,  it  was  no  longer  spoken  of  because  it  was  not  known 
whether  it  was  a  gold  or  a  quicksilver  mine  or  what  it  was,  and  Cas- 
tillero was*1he  first  person  who  knew  the  metal. 

Ques.  5. — And  what  had  Robles  to  say  about  it  when  it  was  first 
spoken  of? 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans.  5. — He  said  that  they  had  been  there  at  working,  breaking 
stone,  but  that  they  were  unable  to  ascertain  what  kind  of  metal  it 
was. 

Ques.  6. — By  what  name  was  this  mine  known  in  those  times  ? 

(Objected  to.) 


632 

Ans.  6. — It  was  known  under  the  name  of  the  mine  of  the  Chaboyas. 
Ques.  7. — When  was  it  first  known  as  the  mine  of  Santa  Clara  ? 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans.  7. — In  Castillero's  time. 

Ques.  8. — When  was  it  first  called  New  Almaden  ? 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans.  8. — It  was  first  called  New  Almaden  in  Castillero's  time  also. 
It  was  called  by  both  names,  but  that  of  New  Almaden  was  latterly 
more  generally  used  than  that  of  Santa  Clara  Mine. 

Ques.  9. — What  do  you  mean  by  latterly  ? 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans.  9. — I  mean  to  say  that  when  Castillero  took  possession  of  the 
Mine  it  was  publicly  known  as  the  New  Almaden  Mine  or  the  Santa 
Clara  Mine. 

Ques.  10. — Do  you  mean  that  Castillero  gave  it  the  name  of  New 
Almaden  ? 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans.  10. — I  don't  know  who  gave  it  that  name,  but  in  Castillero's 
time  I  have  heard  it  called  by  that  name. 

Ques.  11. — When  you  say  in  Castillero's  time,  and  when  Castillero 
took  possession,  do  you  mean  that  this  Mine  was  called  New  Almaden 
at  the  time  of  the  execution  of  the  last  paper  in  the  document  pro- 
duced by  S.  0.  Houghton,  which  you  have  testified  this  morning  was 
signed  by  yourself  and  by  Antonio  Suiiol  and  Jose*  Noriega  as  attest- 
ing witnesses,  now  shown  you  ? 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans.  11. — No ;  when  that  paper  was  executed  the  Mine  was  not 
called  New  Almaden,  it  was  so  called  afterwards. 

Ques.  12. — Why  then  did  you  say  when  Castillero  took  possession, 
and  in  the  time  of  Castillero  ; — what  did  you  mean  ? 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans.  12. — I  mean  that  after  Castillero  took  possession  of  the  Mine 
and  while  he  was  working  it,  it  got  the  name  of  New  Almaden. 

Ques.  13. — What  do  you  mean  when  you  say,  while  he  was  working 
it.     What  do  you  refer  to  ? 


633 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans.  13. — I  mean  since  the  Mine  was  first  begun  to  be  worked 
until  now  it  has  been  called  New  Almaden- 

Ques.  14. — Since  it  was  first  begun  to  be  worked  by  whom,  and  in 
what  year  ? 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans.  14. — By  Castillero.  In  the  year  1845,  at  the  time  of  the 
possession. 

Ques.  15. — Then  it  was  not  Castillero  who  gave  it  the  name  of 
Santa  Clara  ?  Who  was  it  that  gave  it  the  name  of  Santa  Clara,  and 
when? 

(The  form  of  this  question  objected  to  as  tending  to  mislead  the 
witness,  by  stating  in  substance  that  he  has  said  that  Andres  Castillero.) 

(Question  withdrawn.) 

Ques.  16. — Was  it  then  or  was  it  not  Castillero  who  gave  to  this 
Mine  the  name  of  Santa  Clara  ?     Who  gave  it  that  name,  and  when  ? 

(Question  objected  to  as  leading.) 

Ans.  16. — I  don't  know  who  gave  it  this  name  ;  it  was  called  so 
formerly  in  the  time  of  the  Fathers.  The  Indians  used  to  go  there 
for  yellow  paint  for  the  Church,  but  it  was  a  mine  that  was  not 
worked. 

Ques.  17. — What  have  you  heard  from  the  old  inhabitants  of  the 
Pueblo  of  San  Jose'  and  the  Mission  of  Santa  Clara  concerning  the  first 
knowledge  that  civilized  people  obtained  of  this  Mine,  how  long  had 
its  existence  been  known,  and  in  what  manner  was  it  brought  to  their 
knowledge  ? 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans.  17. — I  have  not  heard  any  one  say  when  the  existence  of  the 
Mine  was  first  known,  nor  how  it  was  discovered,  nor  when. 

Adjourned  until  to-morrow,  Thursday,  Nov.  12,  1857,  at  11  A.  M. 

48 


634 

San  Francisco,  November  12, 1857, 11  A.  M. 

Examination  of  Antonio  Maria  Pico,  a  witness  produced  on  behalf 
of  the  Claimant,  continued. 

Present  :  The  United  States  Attorney  by  E.  Randolph ;  A.  C. 
Peachy  for  Claimant. 

Ques.  18. — Then  you  have  heard  no  tradition  among  the  old  people 
concerning  this  Mine  ? 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans.  18. — I  heard  no  tradition  amongst  the  first  inhabitants  touch- 
ing this  Mine.  All  that  I  heard  was  from  the  persons  whom  I  have 
named. 

Ques.  19. — Was  it  only  since  the  year  1835,  about  which  time  you 
remember  having  heard  Robles,  the  Chaboyas'  and  Sufiol  talk  about 
the  Mine,  that  the  Indians  were  accustomed  to  go  there  to  get  yellow 
paint  for  the  Church  ?  Had  it  not  been  the  custom  of  those  Indians 
from  the  time  of  the  earliest  inhabitants  ? 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans.  19. — In  the  year  1835  it  was  said  in  San  Jose  that  the  In- 
dians were  in  the  habit  of  going  to  the  mine  for  paint,  but  I  do 
not  know  whether  they  went  in  the  time  of  the  earliest  inahbit- 
ants.  ' 

Ques.  20. — For  how  long  a  time  before  1835  had  the  Indians 
been  accustomed  to  go  to  the  mine  for  paint,  according  to  the  re- 
port you  may  have  heard  among  the  old  inhabitants  ? 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans.  20. — I  do  not  remember  how  long. 

Ques.  21. — Were  they  accustomed  to  go  there  at  all  before  the 
year  1835,  according  to  the  old  inhabitants  ? 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans.  21. — I  do  not  remember  to  have  heard  how  long  prior  to 
the  year  1835  they  had  been  accustomed  to  go  there. 
Ques.  22. — When  did  you  come  to  live  in  San  Jose  ? 

(Objected  to.) 


635 

Ans.  22. — In  the  year  1832  I  lived  on  a  ranch  near  San  Jose, 
and  in  the  year  1854  I  went  to  live  at  San  Jose.  This  is  as  well 
as  I  can  remember. 

Ques.  23. — Have  you  known  Antonio  Sunol  ever  since  that  time, 
and  where  has  he  been  living  ? 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans.  23. — I  have  known  him  since  then;  since  then  he  has  lived 
at  the  Mission  of  San  Jose,  at  the  Pueblo  of  San  Jose,  and  at  the 
ranch  where  I  lived  near  San  Jose. 

Ques.  24. — Did  you  not  hear  in  1835  that  this  mine  contained 
quicksilver  ? 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans.  24. — No,  I  heard  nothing  of  that. 

Ques.  25. — What  mineral  was  the  mine  supposed  to  contain  ? 

(Objected  to:)  - 

Ans.  25. — I  did  not  know  what  it  was,  I  did  not  hear  what  the 
supposition  was. 

Ques.  26. — Did  you  not  hear  after  1835  and  before  the  time  of 
Castillero  that  the  mine  contained  quicksilver  ?  During  that  in- 
terval what  metal  was  it  supposed  to  contain  ? 

(Question  objected  to  as  being  leading,) 

Ans.  26. — During  the  period  mentioned  I  did  not  hear  that  the 
mine  contained  quicksilver;  during  that  time  there  was  no  suppo- 
sition as  to  what  the  mine  contained:  it  was  through  Castillero 
that  the  contents  of  the  mine  were  ascertained. 

Ques.  27. — Did  you  not  hear  Antonio  Sunol  in  the  year  1835, 
or  at  some  time  afterward,  and  before  the  year  1845,  say  that  the 
mine  contained  quicksilver  ?  What  did  you  hear  him  say  that  he 
supposed  the  mine  contained  ? 

(Question  objected  to,  first,  as  being  leading;  second,  as  asking 
hearsay.)  ^ 

Ans.  27. — I  do  not  remember  having  heard  Si.nil  say  what  the 
mine  contained,  during  the  time  mentioned,  nor  what  he  supposed 
it  contained. 

Ques.  28. — Was  it  a  short  time  before  or  a  short  time  after  the 
execution  of  this  instrument,  viz  :  the  last  instrument  in  the  Doc- 


636 

ument  produced  by  S.  0.  Houghton,  signed  by  you  and  witnessed 
by  Antonio  Suiiol  and  Jose  Noriega,  that  you  first  heard  their  mine 
called  New  Almaden  ? 

(Question  objected  to.) 

Ans.  28. — A  little  before  or  after  the  execution  of  said  paper 
the  mine  got  the  name  of  New  Almaden;  this  is  my  opinion,  I  can- 
not be  positive,  to  avoid  lying.  I  do  not  remember  exactly  when  I 
first  heard  the  name  of  New  Almaden;  after  the  discovery  the 
mine  was  known  under  the  name  of  New  Almaden. 

Ques.  29. — Look  at  Exhibit  CD.  attached  to  the  deposition  of 
Jose  Fernandez,  now  shown  you,  and  which  exhibit  you  have  testi- 
fied was  signed  by  Manuel  Castro  and  yourself,  and  signed  by 
Castro  in  your  presence,  and  tell  all  you  know  about  the  execution 
of  that  paper.  How  came  it  to  be  signed  by  Castro  in  your  pres- 
ence ?     When  and  where,  and  under  what  circumstance!  ? 

Ans.  29. — It  was  executed  at  the  Mission  of  Santa  Clara:  it  is 
a  copy  of  the  original,  Castro  being  prefect  and  I  Alcalde.  It 
was  intended  to  be  a  copy  of  the  original  he  signed  in  my  pres- 
ence, because  we  were  together.  I  do  not  remember  when  it  was, 
but  the  paper  itself  will  show.  I  think  it  was  made  at  the  request 
of  the  parties  mentioned  in  it.  I  do  no't  remember  for  what  pur- 
pose it  was  made.  The  paper  was  executed  in  Father  Real's  room 
where  he  lived  with  Castillero.  I  do  not  know  whether  we  signed 
with  the  same  pen,  we  were  all  there  together,  we  signed  at  the 
same  table. 

Ques.  30. — Are  the  Rubrics  after  the  name  of  Manuel  Castro 
and  your  name,  respectively,  your  respective  rubrics  ?  What 
rubrics  are  those  on  the  first  page  in  the  margin  ?  Are  not  the 
exhibits  "  CD'^'TR  "  "  M  A  *  "XY  "  all  in  the  hand-writing 
of  Gutierrez  manifestly  ?  Campare  them  with  the  last  paper  in 
the  document  produced  by  S.  0.  Houghton,  which  you  have  said 
you  thought  was  in  the  hand  writing  of  Gutierrez,  and  point  out 
airy  resemblance  you  may  find  between  the  hand  writing  of  these 
exhibits  and  that  paper. 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans.  30. — The  rubrics  first  mentioned  in  the  last  question  are 
those  of  Mannel  Castro  and  myself.  The  other  rubrics  mentioned 
in  said  question  I  think  were  made  by  the  person  who  wrote  the 
body  of  the  paper.  The  papers  marked  Exhibits  "  C  D  "  "  X  Y  " 
"  L  R  "  in  my  opinion  are  all  written  by  Gutierrez.  The  hand- 
writing of  the  last  paper  in  the  document  referred  to  is  similar 
to  the  hand-writing  of  the  said  three  Exhibits,  the  said  last  paper 


637 

was  writen  more  rapidly  than  the  said  three  Exhibits,  but  it  is  the 
same  hand-writing,  in  my  opinion. 

Examination  adjourned  until  10  1-2  o'clock  to-morrow,  Nov.  13, 

1857. 


San  Francisco,  Nov.  13,  1857. 

Examination  of  Antonio  Maria  Pico,  a  witness  produced  on 
behalf  of  Claimants,  continued. 

Present  : — United  States  Attorney,  by  E.  Randolph,  A.  C. 
Peachy  for  Claimant. 

Ques.  31. — Were  the  rubrics  on  the  margin  of  the  "Exhibit  C 
D  "  there  when  yon  and  Castro  signed  it?  Look  at  Exhibit  T  R 
and  say  whether  that  is  not  written  rapidly  and  heavily  with  a 
coarse  pen,  and*  say  whether  you  find  any  resemblance  between 
that  Exhibit  and  the  last  writing  in  the  document  produced  by  S. 

0.  Houghton  above  referred  to. 

Ans.  31. — I  do  not  remember  whether  the  rubrics  on  the  said 
margin  were  there  or  not  when  Castro  and  I  signed  ;  I  think  there 
is  a  resemblance  between  the  hand-writings  of  the  two  papers  re- 
ferred to  in  the  last  question,  the  I7s  and  P's  resemble  each  other, 
I  think  that  both  are  in  the  hand- writing  of  Gutierrez,  in  form 
they  resemble  his;  Exhibit  T  R.  is  written  rapidly,  heavily,  and 
with  a  coarse  pen. 

Ques.  32. — In  the  Exhibit  C  D,  signed  by  Manuel  Castro  and 
yourself,  which  of  you  was  the  certifying  officer,  and  which  the 
witness.  Was  it  a  correct  copy,  and  if  so,  how  do  you  know  it 
was  a  correct  copy  ? 

Ans.  32. — I  signed  as  a'witness,  and  Manuel  Castro  was  the 
person  who  gav£  the  certificate  ;  it  was  a  correct  copy  of  the  orig- 
inal.    I  knowvit  was  correct  because  we  compared  it,  Castro  and 

1,  with  the  original.     I  also  compared  it  with  the  original. 
Ques-  33. — Then  can  you  not  say  whether  those  rubrics  were 

on  the  margin  or  not  at  the  time  you  compared  it  and  signed  it? 

Ans.  33. — I  think  they  were  probably  there  also,  but  I  only  ex- 
amined the  contract ;  I  only  examined  the  body  of  the  contract. 

Ques.  34. — Before  whom  was  that  original  celebrated  from  which 
you  took  the  copy  ? 

Ans.  34. — Before  the  Prefect  Manuel  Castro,  and  myself  as  Al- 
calde. 

Ques.  35. — Do  you  mean  that  it  was  celebrated  twice,  once  be- 


638 

fore  the  Prefect  Castro  and  once  before  you,  or  that  it  was  cele- 
brated before  you  both  together,  and  if  the  latter,  what  manner  of 
celebration  was  that,  under  what  law  or  by  what  custom? 

Ans.  35.— We  were  both  together  when  the  original  copies 
were  made,  and  when  this  copy  was  certified. 

Ques.  36. — I  do  not  speak  of  copies.  I  repeat  my  last  question 
with  regard  to  to  the  celebration;  by  which  I  mean  the  execution 
of  the  original  contract. 

Ans.  36. — The. celebration  of  the  original  contract  took  place 
before  Don  Manuel  Castro  ;  I  being  there  also. 

Ques.  37. — How  do  you  know  that  it  was  this  contract  which  was 
executed  before  Don  Manuel  Castro,  you  being  present ;  were  you 
attesting  witness  and  knew  the  contents  of  the  paper,  or  what  are 
your  means  of  knowledge  ? 

Ans.  37. — I  know  that  this  was  the  contract  which  was  celebra- 
ted before  Don  Manuel  Castro,  because  I  considered  myself  there  as 
a  witness,  and  read  the  paper  and  knew  its  contents. 

Ques.  38. — Who  were  the  parties  to  that  original  contract ;  at  what 
time  was  it  celebrated  ;  what  was  done  with  the  original ;  and  where 
is  it  now  ? 

Ans.  38. — The  parties  were  the  same  that  are  mentioned  in  this 
copy  ;  it  was  celebrated  on  the  day  of  the  date  of  the  contract,  which 
is  shown  by  this  copy  ;  I  do  not  know  what  was  done  with  the  original, 
it  probably  remained  in  the  hands  of  the  parties  interested,  but  latter- 
ly I  have  heard  that  Mr.  Forbes  had  it. 

Ques.  39.— What  Mr.  Forbes  ? 

Ans.  39.— Mr.  Forbes  of  Santa  Clara. 

Ques.  40. — At  what  place  was  the  original  contract  celebrated  ? 

Ans,  40. — At  the  Mission  of  Santa  Clara. 

Ques.  41. — Was  not  the  original  contract  deposited  in  Santa  Clara 
in  the  house  in  which  it  was  signed,  or  in  the  Jusgado  of  which  you 
were  judge  in  the  Pueblo  of  San  Jose  ? 

Ans.  41. — I  cannot  remember,  although  I  have  been  trying  to  re- 
member. 

Ques.  42. — On  the  trial  in  the  cause  of  Tobin  vs.  Walkinshaw,  in 
the  Circuit  Court  of  U.  S.,  Districts  of  California,  Northern  District,  I 
find  by  the  notes  of  Judge  Hoffman,  one  of  the  Judges  who  presided 
on  that  trial,  that  you  testified  concerning  this  contract  of  partnership  : 
viz: 

"  There  existed  a  writing  of  partnership  between  Castillero  and 
"  others  ;  they  were  made  in  1845 ;  the  contract  itself  would  tell  the 
"  time  ;  It  was  before  the  concession  was  made  ;  I  did  not  know  the 
"  contents  of  the  articles  ;  the  partners  were  Castillero,  Castro,  el 
"  Padre  and  the  Robles  ;  the  articles  were  executed  before  myself  as 
"  Alcalde  ;  it  was  signed  by  General  Castro,  El  Padre  Real,  the  Ro- 


639 


"  bles,  and  Castillero  ;  they  all  signed  in  my  presence  ;  the  original 
"  was  deposited  in  Santa  Clara,  in  the  house  where  it  was  signed  ;  it 
"  was  deposited  in  the  Jusgado  of  which  I  was  Judge  in  San  Jose'  ; 
"  since  I  left  there  I  don't  know  what  became  of  those  records,  they 
H  may  be  there  still.'' 

Note  the  difference  between  your  testimony  then  and  to-day,  and 
tell  me  how  you  reconcile  those  differences  ;  and  by  the  same  notes  you 
are  made  to  say,  "  Don't  remember  whether  Castro  was  present  at  the 
execution  of  the  original ";  how  do  you  reconcile  that  statement  also, 
with  your  present  testimony  ? 

.  Ans.  42. — I  cannot  say  more  than  what  I  have  already  said  before 
the  Judges,  and  it  is  what  I  remember  ;  I  mean  that  all  I  said  before 
the  Judges  is  true,  or  it  is  what  I  remember  best. 

Ques.  43. — Is  that  the  only  explanation  that  you  can  give  of  the 
contradiction  between  the  statements  which  you  made  before  the  Judges 
and  the  statements  which  you  make  now  ? 

Ans.  43. — It  is  ;  so  as  not  to  contradict,  by  mistake,  what  I  have 
already  said. 

Ques.  44. — Have  you  a  very  bad  memory ;  can  you  not  recollect 
for  a  year  your  declaration  under  oath  ;  can  you  not  recollect  facts  as 
they  occurred  in  your  own  presence  ? 

Ans.  44. — I  forget  things  which  I  have  stated  before,  because  I 
have  not  the  head  to  answer  questions  upon  questions,  they  confuse  you. 

Ques.  45. — In  this  document  now  shown  you,  being  the  one  pro- 
duced by  S.  0.  Houghton  before  referred  to,  how  many  different  hand- 
writings do  you  find  exclusive  of  the  signature,  in  the  four  different  in- 
struments contained  in  this  document  ? 

Ans.  45* — The  superscription  is  one  handwriting  ;  the  decree  on  the 
margin  is  another  ;  Castro's  petition  is  another ;  Castillero's  first  rep- 
resentation is  another.  I  cannot  know  whether  the  handwriting  of  Cas- 
tillero's second  representation  is  the  same  as  the  handwriting  of  Cas- 
tro's petition ;  in  my  opinion  the  handwriting  of  the  act  of  possession 
is  the  same  as  the  handwriting  of  the  superscription,  the  handwriting 
of  the  act  being  smaller. 

Ques.  46. — Are  not  the  two  representations  of  Castillero  and  the 
act  of  possession  each  in  a  different  handwriting  ;  to  those  three  pa- 
pers, how  many  different  signatures  are  there  ;  and  is  any  one  of  the 
three  handwritings  that  of  any  one  of  the  signers  ? 

Ans.  46. — The  said  three  papers  are  in  different  handwritings  ; 
there  are  five  signatures  to  them,  four  of  which  are  different ;  none  of 
the  said  papers  are  in  the  handwriting  of  either  of  those  who  signed 
them. 

Ques.  47. — As  two  of  these  short  papers  were  presented  to  you  as 
Alcalde,  and  the  other  was  executed  before  you  as  Alcalde,  can  you 


640 

explain  why  seven  different  hands  were  employed  in  the  making  and 
signing  of  them  ? 

Ans.  47. — I  signed  the  last  one  as  Alcalde,  and  Sunol  and  Noriega 
signed  as  witnesses  ;  the  petitioner,  Castillero,  signed  the  petition  ; 
Castillero's  second  representation  may  have  been  written  by  himself, 
but  I  am  not  sure,  because  it  also  resembles  the  handwriting  of  Benito 
Diaz ;  there  were  so  many  diiferent  hands,  probably  because  it  suited 
them- 

Ques.  48. — When  was  that  document  which  purports  to  be  an  act 
of  possession  executed  ? 

Ans.  48. — I  do  not  remember,  but  it  is  a  legal  document. 

Ques.  49. — Was  it,  or  was  it  not,  executed  as  it  purports,  at  the 
Jusgado  of  the  Pueblo  of  San  Jose*  ? 

Ans.  49. — Most  likely  it  was  the  Jusgado,  but  I  do  not  know  whether 
it  was  there  or  at  Sunol's  house,  it  was  at  the  one  of  the  two  places. 

Ques.  50. — Had  you,  as  Alcalde,  any  Secretary  in  those  days,  and 
if  so,  who  was  it  ? 

Ans.  50. — Fernandez  was  my  Secretary,  but  I  employed  Gutierrez 
to  write. 

Ques.  51. — Did  you  employ  Gutierrez  to  write  any  one  of  these  pa- 
pers, and  if  so,  which,  and  where  ? 

Ans.  51. — I  employed  him  to  write  them  all  except  the  petitions  ; 
he  was  employed  in  writing  the  paper  which  I  have  already  named  as 
being  in  his  handwriting,  to  wit,  the  act  of  possession,  and  the  con- 
tract of  partnership  ;  I  employed  him  with  the  consent  of  the  parties 
interested. 

Adjourned  until  Nov.  14th,  1857,  at  1  P.  M. 


San  Francisco,  Nov.  14,  1857. 

Examination  of  Antonio  Maria  Pico,  a  witness  produced  on  behalf  of 
the  Claimant,  continued. 

Present  :  U.  S.  Attorney,  by  E.  Randolph ;  A.  C.  Peachy,  for 
Claimant. 

Ques.  52. — The  Fernandez  who  was  your  Secretary,  is  he  the  same 
person  who  was  examined  here  a  few  days  ago  ? 

Ans.  52. — He  is  the  same  person. 

Ques.  53. — The  house  of  Sunol,  of  which  you  have  spoken,  is  it  the 
same  house  in  which  he  now  resides  in  the  Pueblo  of  San  Jose*  ? 


641 

Ans.  53. — It  is  not  the  same  ;  the  house  of  which  I  spoke  was  taken 
away  by  him,  and  he  built  a  new  one  on  the  same  lot. 

Ques.  54. — The  Gutierrez  of  whom  you  have  spoken,  what  was  his 
occupation,  and  where  was  he  then  engaged  in  his  business  ? 

Ans.  54. — During  some  time  he  kept  a  school  near  Sunol's  house  ; 
he  was  engaged  in  his  business  in  the  neighborhood  of  the  Pueblo. 

Ques  55. — Was  he  keeping  a  school  near  the  house  of  Sunol  at  the 
time  that  he  wrote  out  the  act  of  possession  ? 

Ans.  55. — I  do  not  remember  whether  he  still  kept  his  school  there  ; 
it  may  be  that  he  was  still  there. 

Ques.  56. — Did  he  write  the  act  of  possession  at  the  Jusgado,  at 
the  house  of  Sunol,  or  at  the  school  house  ? 

Ans.  56. — I  do  not  remember  where  he  wrote  it. 

Ques.  57. — Did  he  not  write  it  at  the  time  when  you,  or  the  parties 
interested,  with  your  knowledge,  employed  him  to  write  it  ? 

Ans.  57  — He  did. 

Ques.  58. — Then  have  you  no  recollection  at  all  as  to  where  he 
wrote  it  ?     What  recollection  have  you  about  it  ? 

Ans.  58. — I  do  not  remember  exactly  whether  it  was  at  the  Jus- 
gado, or  at  Sunol's  house,  or  elsewhere  within  my  jurisdiction ;  be- 
cause the  Alcalde  had  jurisdiction  over  the  whole  Pueblo. 

Ques.  59. — Did  he  write  it  in  your  presence,  or  on  the  same  day 
wrhen  you  signed  it,  just  before  you  signed  it  ? 

Ans.  59. — I  do  not  remember,  but  my  opinion  is,  that  it  was  all 
made  on  the  day  on  which  we  signed  it. 

Ques.  60. — Where  was  the  boundary  of  the  Pueblo  in  the  year 
1845,  on  the  side  towards  the  Mission  of  Santa  Clara  ? 

Ans.  60. — The  Guadalupe  River  was  the  boundary  on  that  side,  but 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  Alcalde  extended  to  the  Arroyo  San  Francis- 
quito — the  Corte  Madera. 

Ques.  61. — Was  not  the  Jusgado  and  the  house  of  Sunol  both  sit- 
uated in  the  Pueblo  of  San  Jose*  ? 

Ans.  61. — They  were. 

Ques.  62. — How  is  it  that,  on  your  direct  examination,  you  spoke 
doubtfully  as  to  the  handwriting  of  the  act  of  possession,  and  now  you 
say  that  you,  or  the  parties  interested,  with  your  knowledge,  employ- 
ed Gutierrez  to  write  that  paper  ;  if  he  was  employed  in  this  way,  why 
were  you  not  certain  about  that  handwriting  ? 

Ans.  62. — I  have  always  said  that  Gutierrez  was  the  one  who  wrote 
the  act  of  possession,  but  that  there  were  many  who  wrote  in  the  mat- 
ters concerning  the  mine  ;  there  were  several,  Castaneda  and  others. 

Ques.  63. — Were  all  those  persons  and  Gutierrez  writing  in  the 
matters  concerning  the  mine  at  the. same  time  ? 

Ans.  63. — I  do  not  remember. 

Ques.  64. — Recall  all  the  names  of  those  who  were  engaged  in  writ- 


642 

ing  in  the  matters  concerning  the  mine,  or  who  were  present  at  the 
time  of  these  meetings,  either  as  parties  interested,  or  as  witnesses,  or 
otherwise,  to  the  best  of  your  ability  now  to  remember. 

Ans.  64. — I  remember  that  Sunol  and  Noriega  were  present  as 
witnesses,  and  I  as  Alcalde ;  I  do  not  remember  who  else  was  present 
at  that  moment. 

Ques.  65. — Are  those  all  you  can  remember ;  was  not  your  Secre- 
retary,  Fernandez,  present  at  the  writing  of  these  papers,  or  when  the 
act  of  possession  was  executed  by  yourself,  and  witnessed  by  Antonio 
Sunol  ? 

Ans.  65. — I  do  not  remember  whether  Fernandez  was  there  or  not ; 
Those  whom  I  have  named  are  the  only  ones  whom  I  remember  as  hav- 
ing been  present  at  that  moment. 

Ques.  66. — Was  it  not  customary  for  the  Alcalde  to  employ  their 
Secretaries  in  writing  out  official  papers,  and  as  attesting  witnesses  to 
their  official  acts  ;  why  was  it  that  your  Secretary  wrote  none  of  the 
papers  concerning  this  mine,  and  that  other  persons  were  called  to  at- 
test your  act  of  possession  ? 

Ans.  66. — It  was  customary,  but  they  could  call  in  others ;  my 
Secretary  did  not  write  any  of  these  papers,  and  other  persons  acted 
as  witnesses,  because  I  chose  to  do  it  in  that  way  ;  it  suited  me  to  do  so. 

Ques.  67. — When  your  act  of  possession  was  all  finished  what  did 
you  do  with  it  ? 

Ans.  67. — Gutierrez  kept  the  papers  to  arrange  them,  and  place 
them  on  record  ;  he  took  charge  of  everything. 

Ques.  68. — How  many  papers  were  there  ?  What  arrangements 
were  there  to  make  ;  and  this  being  an  official  act,  and  you  being  Al- 
calde, and  keeper  of  your  own  records,  why  did  you  not  keep  the 
papers  and  file  them  away  yourself? 

Ans.  68. — I  do  not  remember  how  many  papers  there  were  ;  it  was 
necessary  to  put  a  cover  and  superscription  upon  them.  The  Secre- 
tary is  the  person  who  has  charge  of  the  Jusgado,  and  Gutierrez  kept 
them  to  deliver  them  to  the  Secretary. 

Ques.  69. — Was  there  any  other  paper  but  the  document  which  has 
been  produced  by  S.  0.  Houghton  ?  Was  the  original  contract  of 
partnership  one  of  the  papers  which  remained  with  Gutierrez  to  ar- 
range and  file  away  in  the  archives  ? 

Ans.  69. — The  paper  first  mentioned  was  one  of  them,  but  I  do  not 
know  whether  the  last  mentioned  paper  was  one  of  them  or  not. 

Ques.  70. — Do  you  know  what  are  "  rotulones  "  ;  and  if  so,  what 
are  they  ? 

Ans.  70. — I  do  not  understand  that  word,  it  has  a  thousand  mean- 
ings. As  we  understand  it,  it  means  the  letters  which  are  placed  on 
the  outside  of  an  Expediente,  large  letters. 

Ques.  71. — Speaking  of  Mines,  what  are  "  rotulones  "  ? 


643 

Ans.  71. — I  understand  that  they  are  public  Notices  placed  in  some 
public  places,  notifying  the  public  that  any  person  who  has  any  right 
or  claim  must  appear  before  the  Judge,  or  if  not  at  the  expiration  of 
the  time  possession  will  be  given. 

Ques.  72. — Who  put  up  the  "  rotulones  "  for  this  Mine  ;  where 
were  they  put  up,  and  for  how  many  days  ? 

(Question  objected  to.) 

Ans.  72. — They  were  placed  in  different  places  in  the  Jusgado,  I 
think  for  sixty  days,  but  I  do  not  know  what  the  law  states  ;  I  am  not 
sure  as  to  the  time,  nor  as  to  what  the  law  states. 

Ques.  73. — What  do  you  mean  by  different  places  in  the  Jusgado  ? 
Suppose  this  room  was  the  Jusgado,  and  explain  what  you  mean. 

(Question  objected  to.) 

Ans.  78. — I  mean  that  they  were  placed  in  the  most  public  places 
in  the  Court  Room. 

Ques.  74. — Did  you  at  that  time  inform  yourself  of  what  the  law 
required  ?  Did  you  post  up  the  "  rotulones  "  for  all  the  days  required 
by  law  ? 

(Question  objected  to.) 

Ans.  74. — I  knew  at  that  time  what  the  law  required  ;  I  do  not 
remember  well,  but  I  believe  I  complied  with  the  law.  Castillero  and 
I  had  the  law,  the  Ordinanzas  de  Mineria. 

Ques.  75. — In  the  first  petition  of  Castillero  which  you  have  before 
you,  he  says  that  he  had  discovered  this  Mine ;  why  did  you  receive 
that  petition  when  you  knew  it  was  untrue,  because  the  Chaboyas  had 
occupied  it  in  1835,  and  the  Indians  had  long  been  accustomed  to 
bring  paint  from  it  for  the  Church,  as  you  have  before  testified  ? 

(Question  objected  to  ;  first,  because  the  witness  has  not  said  nor 
has  it  been  in  any  way  proven  that  Castillero's  representation  was  un- 
true ;  secondly,  because  the  facts  mentioned  in  the  question  for  the 
purpose  of  proving  Castillero's  representation  to  have  been  untrue  do 
not  in  fact  prove  it ;  third,  because  the  witness  is  not  on  trial  on  im- 
peachment ;  fourth,  because  it  is  not  competent  to  inquire  into  any 
irregularities  which  may  have  preceded  the  act  of  registry  and  the 
concession.) 

Ans.  75. — Castillero  was  the  first  who  brought  to  light  the  metal, 


644 

the  quicksilver.     He  produced  before  me  the  metal  as  a  proof  of  what 
he  said. 

Ques.  76. — Read  that  petition  ;  does  it  say  anything  about  quicksil- 
ver ?     What  metal  does  it  say  the  Mine  contained  ? 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans.  76. — The  petition  speaks  of  gold  and  silver,  but  it  was  known 
that  it  contained  quicksilver,  because  I  saw  it  myself. 

Examination  adjourned  until  11  o'clock,  November  16,  1857. 


San  Francisco,  November  16, 1857, 

Examination  of  Antonio  Maria  Pico,  a  witness  produced  on  behalf 
of  the  Claimant  this  day,  continued  until  to-morrow,  Tuesday,  Novem- 
ber 17, 1857,  at  11  A.  M. 


San  Francisco,  November  17, 1857. 

Examination  of  Antonio  Maria  Pico,  a  witness  produced  on  behalf 
of  the  Claimant  this  day,  continued  until  to-morrow,  Wednesday, 
November  18,  1857,  at  11  A.  M. 


San  Francisco,  November  18,  1857. 

Examination  of  Antonio  Maria  Pico,  a  witness  produced  on  behalf 
of  the  Claimant  in  this  case,  this  day  continued. 

Present  :  The  United  States  Attorney  by  Edmund  Randolph  ;  A. 
C.  Peachy  for  Claimant. 

Ques.  77. — If  it  was  known  that  the  Mine  contained  quicksilver 
when  that  first  petition  was  presented  to  you,  why  was  not  quicksilver 
expressed  in  the  petition  ?  Why  was  it  not  mentioned  along  with 
gold  and  silver  ?  Was  not  quicksilver  at  that  time  considered  a  valua- 
ble metal  ? 

(Question  objected  to  as  irrelevant.) 


645 

Ans.  77. — I  do  not  know  why  quicksilver  was  not  mentioned  in 
that  petition.  It  was  known  at  that  time  that  quicksilver  was  a  pre- 
cious metal. 

Ques.  78. — If  it  was  known  at  the  date  of  the  first  petition  that  the 
Mine  contained  quicksilver,  how  did  it  happen  that  eleven  days  after- 
wards Castillero  presented  a  second  petition  in  which  he  declared  that 
he  had  made  the  discovery  of  quicksilver  since  the  date  of  his  first 
petition  ?  Before  answering  this  question  look  at  the  second  petition 
of  Castillero  which  you  now  have  before  you. 

Ans.  78. — I  do  not  remember  why  this  was  done,  it  is  a  very  old 
affair  and  I  cannot  remember. 

Ques.  79. — If  the  affair  is  so  old  that  you  cannot  remember  how  it 
was  conducted,  might  you  not  also  be  mistaken  about  these  papers 
having  been  presented  to  you  at  all  at  that  time  ? 

Ans.  79. — I  remember  the  documents  of  course,  because  I  saw  them, 
and  left  them  in  the  hands  of  Gutierrez.  I  had  them  as  a  person  in 
authority. 

Ques.  80. — You  have  said  thai  you  had  the  "  Ordinanzas  de  Mi- 
neria ; "  did  you  have  them  in  a  book  called  "  Ordinanzas  de 
Mineria  \n 

(Question  objected  to.) 

Ans.  80. — I  think  so. 

Ques.  81. — Would  you  know  the  book  if  you  were  to  see  it  again  ? 

Ans.  81. — I  do  not  know  whether  I  would  know  the  book  now  or 
not,  because  a  long  time  has  elapsed,  and  it  was  a  matter  in  which  I 
was  not  interested  at  all. 

Ques.  82. — Did  you  ever  see  more  than  one  book  marked  "  Ordi- 
nanzas de  Mineria  ?  "  If  you  have  seen  more  than  one  were  they  not 
all  exactly  alike  ? 

(Question  objected  to.]) 

Ans.  82.^ — That  was  the  only  one  which  I  have  seen. 

(The  United  States  Attorney  here  offers  to  hand  to  the  witness  a 
book  marked  "  Ordenanzas  de  Mineria,"  and  to  ask  the  witness  whether 
that  was  the  same  book  that  he  had  or  whether  the  book  resembled  it 
in  size  and  appearance. 

The  Attorney  for  the  Claimant  asks  the  Attorney  for  the  United 
States  if  he  is  going  to  file  the  book  in  this  cause.  He  says  he  is  not. 
The  Attorney  for  the  CJaimant  objects  to  the  United  States  Attorney 
asking  the  witness  any  question  about  said  book,  and  asks  for  a  decis- 


646 

ion  of  that  point  by  the  Court  before  the  examination  shall  be  further 
proceeded  with. 

The  Court  not  being  in  session  at  this  precise  time  to  pass  upon  this 
question,  Attorney  for  the  United  States  passes  it  for  the  present.) 

Ques.  83. — Look  now  at  the  last  instrument  in  the  document  pro- 
duced by  S.  0.  Houghton,  which  you  now  have  before  you  and  which 
you  call  your  act  of  possession,  the  same  which  you  signed  by  yourself 
as  Alcalde,  and  by  Antonio  Sunol  and  Jose*  Noriega  as  attesting  wit- 
nesses, and  say,  if  you  can,  why  the  day  of  execution  was  left  blank, 
viz.  thus :  u  Diciembre  de  mil  ochocientos  cuarenta  y  cinco  ?  " 

Ans.  83. — I  suppose  it  was  forgotten  in  the  hurry. 

Ques.  84. — What  do  you  mean  by  the  hurry,  what  occasion  was 
there  for  haste  ? 

Ans.  84. — There  was  no  hurry,  but  as  there  was  no  malice,  nor 
fraud,  nor  bad  intentions  at  that  time,  we  did  not  pay  particular  atten- 
tion to  the  dates.     We  did  not  mind  that. 

Ques.  85. — Was  not  this  instrument  the  most  important  paper  con- 
nected with  the  Mine  ?  Was  not  the  date,  taken  in  connection  with 
the  date  of  the  petitions,  a  very  important  part  of  this  instrument  ? 
Can  you  refer  me  to  any  other  paper  important  or  unimportant  re- 
lating to  this  Mine  in  which  the  date  is  left  blank  ? 

(First  part  of  the  question  objected  to  as  simply  asking  the  wit- 
ness' opinion  ;  and  the  second  part  of  it  asks  of  the  witness  a  reference 
to  papers  with  which  the  Attorney  of  the  United  States  is  more  familiar 
perhaps  than  the  witness,  and  certainly  has  the  opportunity  of  making 
himself  so  if  he  is  not ;  and  further,  because  it  asks  the  witness  to  ex- 
plain, or  construe,  or  give  his  opinion,  about  written  documents.) 

Ans.  85. — I  think  that  is  the  most  important  of  the  papers  relating 
to  the  Mine.  The  date  is  an  important  part  of  it.  I  do  not  know 
whether  there  is  any  other  paper  relating  to  the  Mine  in  which  the 
date  is  omitted,  or  in  which  the  date  is  left  blank. 

Ques.  86. — When  you  with  said  Sunol  and  Noriega,  signed  said 
paper,  was  the  preceding  writing  on  it,  or  was  it  blank  and  the 
writing  put  on  afterwards  ? 

Ans.  86. — When  we  signed,  everything  was  finished,  the  act  was 
all  written. 

Ques.  87. — Why  did  you  sign  an  act  which  purported  to  grant 
three  thousand  varas  in  all  directions  ?  Did  you  lind  any  author- 
ity for  that  in  the  "  Ordenanzas  de  Mineria  Y" 

(Question  objected  to.     First,  because  it  enquires  into  the  wit- 


64T 

ness'  private  motive  in  his  performance  of  an  official  act.  and 
Secondly,  because  the  latter  branch  of  the  question  is,  a  simple 
inquiry  into  the  witness'  opinion  of  the  law.) 

Ans.  87. — Because  Castillero  told  me  that  he  required  three 
thousand  varas,  and  then  I  told  him  to  take  them  in  all  directions. 
He  told  me  that  he  had  that  right  by  reason  of  his  being  the  first 
discoverer  of  the  metal.  According  to  what  Castillero  told  me  I 
believed  that  I  as  Alcalde  had  authority  to  do  that,  there  being 
no  other  "  Juez  de  letras  "  (Judge  of  Letters.)  He  was  a  man 
learned  on  all  those  subjects.  He  told  me  that  I  was  "  Juez  de 
Letras  "  and  I  considered  myself  such  there  being  no  other  "  Juez 
de  Letras." 

Ques.  88. — Was  not  the  Pueblo  of  San  Jose  in  the  second 
"  Partido  V  or  District  ?  Was  not  the  Pueblo  of  San  Francisco 
de  Asis  the  head  of  the,  District  at  that  time  ?  Was  not  Guer- 
rero Alcalde  of  first  nomination  in  San  Francisco,  and  as  such  did 
he  not  have  the  power  of  Judge  of  first  instance,  to  the  exclusion 
of  yourself  and  the  other  Alcaldes  in  that  "  Partido  "  or  District, 
and  was  he  not  the  only  Alcalde  entitled  to  be  called  a  "  Juez  de 
letras  "  or  Judge  of  Letters  ? 

(So  much  of  above  question  as  asks  the  witness'  opinion  of  the 
law,  objected  to.) 

Ans.  88. — San  Jose  was  in  the  second  District;  I  do  not  remem- 
ber whether  San  Francisco  de  Asis  or  Monterey  was  the  head  of 
the  District;  I  do  not  remember  whether  Guerrero  was  Alcalde  at 
that  time  ;  I  do  not  know  whether  he  had  a  right  to  be  called 
"  Juez  de  Letras." 

Ques.  89 — What  sort  of  a  possession  is  this  of  which  you  have 
spoken?  Who  went  with  you  to  the  mine?  Who  were  there 
present  ?  What  Surveyor  did  you  have,  and  what  instruments  ? 
What  measurements  did  you  make,  what  works  did  you  perform  ? 
How  many  stakes  did  you  drive,  where,  and  by  whom  were  they 
driven  ?  r  Tell  all  that  occurred,  how  long  you  stayed  there,  when 
you  returned  and  to  what  place  ?  Say  also  what  Mining  Professor 
was  there  present. 

Ans.  89. — Sunol,  Noriega,  El  Padre  Real,  Castillero,  Gutierrez, 
and  I  think  Fernandez  also,  went  with  me  to  the  mine;  other  per- 
sons went,  but  I  do  not  remember  who  they  were.  These  same 
persons  arrived  at  the  mouth  of  the  mine,  we  were  there  some 
time,  and  I  sent  for  Sergeant  Jose  Reyes  Berryesa  to  his  Rancho. 
These  were  there.  There  were  also  other  persons  there,  but  I  do 
not  remember  who  they  were.  There  was  no  Surveyor.  Castil 
lero  had  a  small  pocket  compass.     I  told  Castillero  that  no  meas- 


648 

urement  could  be  made  with  a  cord  because  the  ground  was  very 
uneven  ;  that  he  might  take  the  three  thousand  varas  within  the 
Sierra,  (mountains)  in  every  direction;  everything  that  was  spo- 
ken there  was  written  in  a  blotter;  all  that  I  said  to  Castillero  ; 
this  was  the  only  work  we  performed.  I  do  not  remember  having 
driven  any  stakes;  I  do  not  remember  whether  any  were  driven  or 
not.  We  remained  a  considerable  length  of  time  at  the  mine,  I 
do  not  know  how  many  hours  we  were  examining  everything  ;  we 
returned  to  San  Jose,  where  we  arrived  very  late.  The  only  Pro- 
fessor of  Mining  who  was  there  was  Castillero,  because  he  under- 
stood it. 

Ques.  90. — Was  the  land  of  which  you  say  you  thus  gave  pos- 
session in  its  form  a  square  or  a  circle  ? 

(Question  objected  to  on  the  ground  that  the  act  of  possession 
is  in  writing,  and  it  is  not  competent  to  explain  or  to  vary  this 
instrument  by  parole  testimony.) 

Ans.  90. — I  do  not  know  whether  it  was  round  or  square,  be- 
cause I  made  the  division  in  different  directions,  as  I  proposed  to 
Castillero,  that  is  to  say,  that  he  should  take  it  where  it  was  va- 
cant, or  in  the  mountains,  because  the  Rancheros  (owners  of 
Ranches,)  would  not  have  mountains;  they  wanted  plains  only. 

Ques.  91. — Who  did  you  send  after  Berreyesa  ?  Did  you  send 
from  the  mine  ?  Did  you  send  a  written  notice  or  a  verbal  one  ? 
How  long  did  you  wait  for  him  ?  How  did  he  come  ?  From 
what  place  did  he  come,  and  how  long  did  he  stay  ? 

Ans.  91. — I  sent  for  him  by  his  own  son;  I  sent  from  the  mine. 
I  sent  a  verbal  notice,  because  I  had  told  him  previously  that  I 
was  going  to  the  mine  at  that  time;  he  soon  came;  I  waited  for 
him  a  short  time,  he  came  on  horseback  from  his  Rancho;  he  re- 
mained until  we  left. 

Ques  .92. — Are  the  Sergeant  Berreyesa  and  that  son  of  his  alive? 
Where  was  Gen'l  Jose  Castro  in  the  month  of  November  1845, 
and  who  was  his  Secretary  at  that  time,  if  he  had  one  ? 

Ans.  92.— Sergeant  Berreyesa  is  dead,  but  I  do  not  know  whether 
that  son  is  dead  or  alive,  because  I  dont  remember  which  of  the 
sons  it  was,  but  I  know  it  was  one  of  them.  I  don't  know  where 
Gen'l  Castro  was  in  that  month,  Castaneda  was  his  Secretary  but 
I  do  not  know  whether  he  was  such  during  that  month,  he  may 
have  been. 


649 


EXAMINATION    IN   CHIEF   RESUMED. 

Ques.  1. — How  long  was  it  before  you  were  examined  in  the 
Case  of  Tobin  v.  Walkinshaw  referred  to  in  the  Cross  Examina- 
tion, that  you  had  read  the  "Escritura  de  Compania  ?" 

Ans.  1. — I  saw  it  before  it  was  shown  to  me  in  Court,  but  I  do 
not  remember  how  long  before. 

Ques.  2. — Since  you  testified  in  that  case  have  you  had  any 
conversation  with  James  Alexander  Forbes  about  either  the 
original  articles  of  partnership  or  the  copy  of  the  same  shown  to 
you  during  this  examination  ? 

(Question  objected  to  as  leading  and  improper  to  be  asked  on 
the  direct  examination,  and  as  introducing  new  matter  not  refer- 
red to  in  the  first  examination  in  chief.) 

Ans.  2. — I  had  a  conversation  with  Mr.  Forbes  touching  the 
original  paper  referred  to,  since  I  testified  in  (Question  withdrawn) 
that  action,  in  which  he  told  me  that  he  had  found  the  original 
"  Escritura  de  Compania,"  and  I  replied  to  him  that  he  ought  to 
put  it  in  evidence  to  show  that  my  testimony  was  true. 

(Attorney  for  the  Claimant  finding  that  he  was  mistaken  by 
supposing  that  the  witness  had  testified  on  his  cross-examination 
that  James  Alexander  Forbes  had  told  the  witness  that  he  had 
the  original  in  his  possession,  withdrew  the  question  before  the 
answer  was  written  down.) 

Ques.  4. — Have  you  ever  had  a  conversation  with  any  person, 
since  you  gave  your  testimony  in  the  suit  of  Tobin  v.  Walkinshaw 
referred  to  in  your  cross-examination,  concerning  the  original 
"  Escritura  de  Compania  "  or  the  copy  of  the  same  shown  to  you 
on  this  examination  ?  If  yea,  state  with  what  person,  and  what 
was  said  by  him  in  that  conversation  touching  the  said  document. 

(Question  objected  to  because  the  unsworn  declarations  of  per- 
sons with  whom  the  witness  may  have  conversed  are  not  compe- 
tent evidence.) 

Ans.  4. — I  had  a  conversation  with  Mr.  Campbell,  my  son-in- 
law,  in  which  I  told  him  that  I  had  been  informed  by  Mr.  Forbes, 
that  he,  Forbes,  had  found  among  his  papers  the  original  "  Escri- 
tura de  Compania."  I  stated  that  he  ought  to  present  it  to  the 
Court  to  show  the  truth  of  my  testimony. 

Ques.  5. — How  did  you  learn  that  Mr.  Forbes  had  that  paper 
49 


650 

in  his  possession  ? 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans.  5. — He  told  me  so  himself  that  he  had  it.  He  told  me 
that  he  found  it  accidentally  among  his  papers. 

(Objected  to.) 

Ques.  6. — How  long  since  he  told  you  so  ? 

(Objected  to.") 

Ans.  6. — He  told  me  so  a  few  days  after  the  termination  of  the 
suit  of  Tobin  v.  Walkinshaw:  he  came  to  my  house  and  told  me. 
He  said  that  all  that  I  had  stated  corresponded  with  what  was 
written. 

(Objected  to.) 

Ques.  7. — Do  you  know  for  what  purpose  Castillero  left  Cali- 
fornia ? 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans.  7. — He  left  to  attend  to  (Question  withdrawn.)  A  Ques- 
tion relating  to  the  "  Ordenanzas  de  Mineria  "  which  has  been 
referred  to  the  Court,  is  dropped  by  the  United  States  Attorney. 

This  disposition  is  taken  subject  to  all  objections,  except  as  to 
the  form  of  the  questions. 

ANTONIO  MA  PICO. 

Sworn  to  and  subscribed  before  me  this  18th  Nov.  1857. 

cutler  McAllister, 

U.  S.  Commr. 


651 

Cross-Examination — A.  M.  Pico — Spanish. 

Preg.  1. — Cuando  fue  la  primera  vez  que  oyo  Vd  hablar  de  esta 
mina. 

Resp.  1. — Lo  primero  que  oi  fue  en  conversaciones  con  Pedro  y 
Luis  Chaboya  y  Robles  en  differentes  occasiones  despues  Sunol  me  dijo 
a  mi  que  les  habia  ay  a  dado  el  en  darles  algunas  cosas  para  ver  si  po- 
dian  saber  que  clase  de  metal  era  ese  y  nunca  pudieron  saber  lo  que 
era. 

Preg.  2. — En  aquellos  tiempos  no  oyo  Vd  hablar  a  otra  persona 
tocante  a  esta  mina  fue  secreto  entre  los  Chaboyas  Sunol  y  Vd.  o  era 
cosa  de  que  todos  en  general  hablaba. 

Resp.  2. — Se  hablaba  mucho  de  eso  entre  todos  en  general. 

Preg.  3. — Cuanto  tiempo  hace  que  se  hablaba  de  eso  entre  todos  en 
general. 

Resp.  3. — Hace  muchos  aiios. 

Preg.  4. — Cuanto  anos  hace  poco  mas  o  menos  y  en  que  ano  poco 
mas  o  menos  se  empezo  a  hablar  asi  de  el. 

Resp.  4. — Yo  oi  hablar  de  la  mina  primero  en  el  ano  '35  en  el  ano 
'45  cuando  primero  vino  Castillero  a  San  Jose  la  casa  ya  se  habia  olvi- 
dado  alii.  No  se  hablaba  mas  de  eso,  porque  no  se  sabia  si  era  mina 
de  oro  o  de  Azogue  o  de  que  era,  y  Castillero  fue*  el  primero  que  con- 
osio  el  metal. 

Preg.  5. — Y  que  drjo  Robles  tocante  a  la  mina  cuando  primero  se 
hablaba  de  ella. 

Resp.  5. — Dijo  que  ellos  habian  estado  alii  trabajando,  que  mando 
piedra  pero  que  no  pudieron  conoser  la  clase  de  metal  que  seria. 

Preg.  6. — Bajo  que  nombre  convenia  esta  mina  en  aquellos  tiempos. 

Resp.  6. — Se  conocia  bajo  el  nombre  de  la  "  mina  de  los  Chabo- 
yes." 

Preg.  7. — Cuando  se  conocio  primero  como  "  La  mina  de  Santa 
Clara." 

Resp.  7. — En  tiempo  de  Castillero. 

Preg.  8. — Cuando  empezaron  a  llamarlo  "  Nuevo  Almaden." 

Resp.  8. — Empezaron  a  llamarlo  Nuevo  Almaden  en  tiempo  de  Cas- 
tillero tambier  lo  llamaban  por  los  dos  nombres,  pero  el  de  Nuevo  Al- 
maden era  mas  general  que  el  de  mina  de  Santa  Clara  ultimamente. 

Preg.  9. — Cuando  dice  "  ultimamente  "  que  es  lo  que  quiere  Vd 
decir. 

Resp.  9. — Quiero  decir  que  cuando  Castillero  tomo  possesion  de  la 
mina  el  publico  lo  conocio  como  la  mina  del  Nuevo  Almaden  o  la  mina 
de  Santa  Clara 

Preg.  10. — Quiere  Vd  decir  que  Castillero  le  dio  el  nombre  de  Nu- 
evo Almaden. 


652 

Resp.  10. — No  se  quien  le  pondria  ese  nombre  pero  en  tiempo  de 
Castillero  lo  he  vido  Uamar  asi. 

Preg.  11. — Cuando  dice  Vd  en  tiempo  de  Castillero  y  cuando  Cas- 
tillero tomo  possesion  quiere  Yd  decir  que  esta  mina  se  llamaba  Alma- 
den  al  tiempo  que  se  hizo  el  ultimo  papel  en  el  Documento  presentado 
por  S.  0.  Houghton,  que  Vd  dijo  esta  manana  que  fue  formado  por 
Vd  y  por  Antonio  Suriol  y  Jose  Noriega  como  testigos  de  asistencia 
que  ahora  se  le  muestra. 

Resp.  11. — No.  Cuando  se  hizo  ese  papel  la  mina  no  se  llamaba 
Nueve  Almaden,  asi  se  llamaba  despues. 

Preg.  12. — Porque  dijo  Vd  entonces  en  tiempo  de  Castillero  y  cuan- 
do Castillero  tomo  posesion  que  era  lo  que  Vd  queria  decir. 

Resp.  12. — Quiero  decir  que  despues  que  Castillero  tomo  posesion 
de  la  mina  y  mientras  que  el  lo  trabajaba  se  le  dio  el  nombre  de  Nue- 
vo  Almaden. 

Preg.  13. — Que  quiere  Vd  decir  cuando  dice  "  mientras  que  el  lo 
trabajaba  "  a  que  se  refiere  Vd. 

Resp.  13. — Quiero  decir  que  desde  que  se  empezo  a  trabjar  la  mina 
hasta  ahora  se  ha  llamado  Nuevo  Almaden. 

Preg.  14. — Desde  que  se  empezo  a  trabajar  por  quien  y  en  que 
ano. 

Resp.  14. — Por  Castillero  en  el  ano  '45  al  tiempo  de  la  posesion. 

Preg.  15. — Entonces  fue  o  no  fue  Castillero  e  que  le  dio  a  esta  mina 
el  nombre  de  Santa  Clara  que  fui  el  que  le  dio  este  nombre  y  cuando 
se  lo  dio. 

Resp.  15. — No  se  quien  le  dio  este  nombre,  se  llamaba  asi  anterior- 
mente  en  tiempo  de  los  Padres.  Los  Indios  iban  alii  y  sacaban  pin- 
turas  amarillas  para  la  iglesia  pero  no  era  mina  que  se  trabaja. 

Preg.  17. — Que  ha  oido  Vd  de  los  antiguos  habitantes  del  Pueblo 
de  San  Jose  y  la  mission  de  la  Santa  Clara  tocanto  al  primer  conoci- 
miento  que  obtuvieron  la  gente  de  razon  de  esta  mina  ;  cuanto  tiempo 
sabian  que  existia  y  como  lo  supierion. 

Resp.  17. — Yo  no  ne  oido  decir  cuando  se  supo  primero  de  la  exis- 
tencia  mina  ;  ni  como  lo  discubieron  ni  cuando. 

Preg.  18. — Entonces  no  ha  vido  Vd  ninguna  tradicion  entre  los  an- 
tiguos habitantes  tocante  a  esta  mina. 

Resp.  18. — Entre  los  fundadores  no  oi  ninguna  tradicion  tocante  a 
la  mina  todo  lo  que  yon  oi  fue  de  las  personas  que  he  nombrado. 

Preg.  19. — Fue  solamente  desde  el  ano  1835  el  tiempo  poco  mas  o 
menos  en  que  Vd  oyo  hablar  de  esta  mina  a  Robles  los  Chaboyas  y 
Suilol.  Que  los  Indios  tenian  costumbre  de  ir  alii  a  traer  pintura  am- 
arilla  para  la  Iglesia.  No  fue  esto  la  costumbre  de  aquellos  Indios 
desde  el  tiempo  de  los  fundadores. 

Resp.  19. — En  el  ano  '35  se  decia  en  San  Jose*  que  los  Indios  iban 


653 

a  la  mina  a  traer  pintura  pero  no  se  si  iban  en  tiempo  de  los  fundado 
res  o  no. 

Preg.  20. — Durante  cuanto  tiempo  anterior  al  ano  1835  tenian  los 
Indios  costumbre  de  ir  a  la  mina  a  traer  pintura  segun  lo  que  decian 
los  antiguos  habitantes. 

Resp.  20. — No  me  acuerdo  cuanto  tiempo. 

Preg.  21. — Que  si  tenian  costumbre  de  ir  alii  jamas  antes  del  ano 
1835  segun  lo  que  decian  los  antiguos  habitantes. 

Resp.  21. — No  me  acuerdo  haber  oido  decir  des  de  que  tiempo  an- 
terior el  ano  '35  eso  tenian  costumbre. 

Preg.  22. — Cuando  vino  Vd  a  vivir  en  San  Jose. 

Resp.  22. — Vine  a  un  Rancho  cerca  de  San  Jose  en  el  ano  '32  y  en 
el  aiio  '34  fui  a  vivir  en  San  Jose  ;  Esto  es  lo  que  tengo  presente. 

Preg.  23. — Desde  ese  tiempo  ha  conocido  Vd  a  Antonio  Suiiol  y 
donde  ha  vivido  el. 

Resp.  23. — Lo  he  conocido  desde  entonces.  El  ha  vivido  desde  en- 
tonces  en  la  Mision  de  San  Jose  y  en  el  Rancho  donde  yo  vivia  cerca 
de  San  Jose. 

Preg.  24. — No  oyo  Vd  dccir  en  el  ano  '35  que  esta  mina  contenia 
azogue. 

Resp.  24. — No  ;  no  oi  nada  de  eso. 

Preg.  25. — Que  era  el  metal  que  se  suponia  que  la  contenia. 

Resp.  25. — No  supe  que  seria,  no  oi  decir  que  se  suponia. 

Preg.  26. — Despues  del  ano  '35  y  antes  del  tiempo  de  Castillero, 
no  oyo  Vd  decir  que  la  mina  contenia  azogue  ;  durante  ese  tiempo  que 
se  suponia  que  era  el  metal  la  mina  contenia. 

Resp.  26. — Durante  el  tiempo  mencionado  no  oi  decir  que  la  mina 
contenia  azogue.  Durante  ese  tiempo  no  habia  suposicion  sobre  lo  que 
contenia  la  mina.    Por  Castillero  se  descubrio  lo  que  contenia  la  mina. 

Preg.  27. — No  oyo  Vd  decir  a  Antonio  Suiiol  el  el  aiio  1835  o  des- 
pues del  ano  1835  y  antes  del  aiio  1845  que  la  mina  contenia  azogue ; 
que  suponia  el  que  la  mina  contenia  segun  lo  que  oyo  Vd  decir. 

Resp.  27. — No  me  acuerdo  haber  vido  decir  a  Suiiol  lo  que  conte- 
nia la  mina  durante  el  tiempo  mencionado,  ni  lo  que  el  suponia  que  le 
contenia  la  mina. 

Preg.  28. — Fue  poco  tiempo  antes  o  poco  despues  de  la  execucion 
de  este  instrumento  que  contiene  el  Documento  que  presento  S.  0. 
Houghton  firmado  por  Vd  y  formado  por  Antonio  Suiiol  y  Jose  Norie- 
ga como  testigos  de  asistencia  que  Vd  por  la  primera  vez  oyo  llainar  a 
esta  mina  Nuevo  Almaden. 

Resp.  28. — Poco  antes  o  despues  de  la  execucion  dedicho  papelfue 
cuando  se  le  dio  a  la  mina  el  nombre  Nuevo  Almaden.  Estos  es  lo  que 
me  parece  ;  no  lo  afirmo  para  no  mentir. 

No  me  acuerdo  exactamente  cuando  fue  que  yo  por  primera  oi  el 


654 

nombre  de  Nuevo  Almaden.  Despues  del  descubrimento  se  conocia 
la  mina  bajo  el  nombre  de  Nuevo  Almaden. 

Preg.  29. — Vea  Yd  el  papel  marcado  "  Exhibit  C.  D.,"  perteneci- 
ente  a  la  deposicion  de  Jose  Fernandez  que  ahora  se  le  muestra  el 
cual  ha  dicho  Vd  en  su  testimonio  fue  firmado  por  Vd  y  Manuel  Cas- 
tro en  presencia  de  Vd  y  diga  Yd  todo  lo  que  Yd  sabe  tocante  a  la 
execusion  de  dicho  papel.  Como  sucedio  que  fue  firmado  por  Castro 
en  la  presencia  de  Yd  ;  adonde  cuando  y  bajo  que  circumstancias. 

Resp.  29. — Fue  executado  en  la  mision  de  Santa  Clara  (esta  es  co- 
pio  de  la  original)  siendo  Castro  Prefecto  y  yo  Alcalde.  Fue  hecho 
como  copia  de  la  original ;  el  firmo  en  mi  presencia  porque  estabamos 
juntos  ;  no  me  acuerdo  cuando  fue  pero  el  mismo  papel  lo  justifica. 

Yo  pienzo  que  se  hizo  a  la  requisicion  de  las  partes  mencionadas  en 
el  mismo  papel.  No  me  acuerdo  con  que  objeto  se  hizo  ;  se  hizo  el 
papel  en  el  cuarto  de  Padre  Real  adonde  vivia  Castillero  y  el  Padre 
pintos.  No  se  si  firmamos  con  la  misma  pluma  ;  estabamos  todos  jun- 
tos ;  fimamos  en  la  misma. 

Preg.  30. — Las  rubricas  puestas  respectivamente  a  las  firmas  de  Yd 
y  de  Manuel  Castro  son  sus  respectivas  rubricas .  que  rubricas  son 
esas  que  estan  en  el  margen  de  la  primera  paquina ;  no  estan  los  pa- 
peles  marcados  Exhibit  C.  D.,  X.  Y.  y  T.  R.  todas  escritos  en  la  letra 
de  Gutierrez  manifiestamente.  Compares  los  con  el  ultimo  papel  en  el 
Documento  presentado  por  S.  0.  Houghton  que  ha  dicho  Yd.  que  le 
parecia  que  estaba  escrito  por  Gutierrez  y  designe  Yd  culesquera 
semejanza  que  encuentre  entre  la  letra  de  los  papeles  marcado  Exhibit 
C.  D.,  X.  Y.  y  T.  R.  y  el  dicho  papel. 

Resp.  30. — Las  Rubricas  primeramente  mencionados  en  la  ultima 
pregunta  son  las  de  Manuel  Castro  y  la  mia.  Las  otras  rubricas  men- 
cionadas en  dicha  pregunta  me  parece  que  fueron  hechas  por  la  misma 
persona  que  escribio  el  cuerpo  del  papel. 

Los  papeles  marcados  Exhibit  C.  D.,  X.  Y.  y  T.  R.,  estan  todos  es- 
critos por  Gutierrez  en  mi  opinion  La  letra  del  ultimo  papel  en  el  Doc- 
umento mencionado  es  semejante  a  la  letra  de  los  tres  papeles  marca- 
dos del  modo  ante  dicho,  el  dicho  ultimo  papel  esta  escrito  con  mas 
rapidez  que  los  dichos  tres  papeles  pero  es  la  misma  letra  en  mi 
opinion. 

Preg.  31. — Las  rubricas  que  estan  en  el  margen  del  papel  marcado 
Exhibit  CD.,  estuvieron  alii  cuando  Yd  y  Castro  lo  firmaron  ?  Yea 
Yd  el  papel  marcado  "  Exhibit  T.  R.,"  y  diga  se  no  esta  escrito  con 
rapidez  y  en  letra  pesada  y  con  pluma  gruesa  y  diga  si  encuentra  al- 
guna  semejanza  entre  la  letra  del  dicho  papel  marcado  T.  R.  y  la  ulti- 
ma letra  contenida  en  el  Documento  presentado  por  S.  0.  Houghton 
antes  mencionado. 

Resp.  31. — No  me  acuerdo  si  las  rubricas  que  estan  en  dicho  mar- 
gen o  no  cuando  Castro  y  yo  lo  firmamos.     Para  mi  hai  semijanza  en- 


655 

tre  la  letra  de  los  dos  papeles  a  los  cuales  refiere  la  ultima  pregunta, 
hai  semijanza  entre  las  jotas  j  las  Ps.  me  parece  que  las  dos  letras  son 
las  de  Gutierrez,  en  firma  son  semejantes  a  la  letra  de  el.  El  papel 
marcado  "  Exhibit  T.  R."  esta  escrita  con  pluma  y  mesa  y  en  letra 
pesada  y  escrito  con  rapidez. 

Preg.  32. — En  el  papel  marcado  Exhibit  CD.  firmado  por  Yd  y 
Manuel  Castro  cual  de  Vds.  era  el  testigo  y  cual  era  el  funcionario 
que  deba  el  certificado.    Fue  copia  exacta  y  si  fue  como  sabe  que  fue. 

Resp.  32. — Yo  firme  como  testigo  y  Manuel  Castro  era  el  que  daba 
el  certificado.  Fue  copia  exacta  de  la  original,  se  que  fue  exacta  por- 
que  la  comparamos,  yo  y  Castro  con  el  original.  Yo  tambien  lo  com- 
pare con  el  original. 

Preg.  33. — Entonces  no  puede  Yd  decir  se  esas  rubricas  estaban  o 
no  estaban  en  el  marjen  cuando  Yd  lo  comparo  y  lo  firmo. 

Resp.  33. — Yo  pienso  que  estavian  tambien,  pero  no  examine  mas 
que  el  contrato.     Examine  solamente  el  cuerpo  de  la  contrata. 

Preg.  34. — Delante  de  quirer  fue  celebrado  aquel  original  del  cual 
saco  Yd  la  copia. 

Resp.  34. — Delante  de  prefecto  Don  Manuel  Castro  y  de  mi  como 
Alcalde. 

Preg.  35. — Quiere  Yd  decir  que  fue  celebrado  dos  veces,  una  vez 
delante  del  Prefecto  Castro  y  una  vez  delante  de  Yd.  o  que  fue  cele- 
brado delante  de  los  dos  juntos  y  si  de  este  ultimo  modo  se  hizo  que 
laya  de  celebracion  era  esa,  y  bajo  que  ley  o  segun  que  costumbre  era. 

Resp.  35. — Estabamos  los  dos  Juntos  cuando  se  secaron  las  copias 
originales  y  cuando  se  certifico  esta  copia. 

Preg.  36. — Yo  no  hablo  de  copias.  Repito  la  ultima  pregunta  to- 
cante  a  la  celebracion  por  lo  cual  quiero  decir  la  execusion  de  la  con- 
trata original. 

Resp.  36. — La  celebracion  de  la  contrata  original  se  hizo  delante  de 
Don  Manuel  Castro  estando  yon  alii  tambien. 

Preg.  37. — Como  sabe  Yd  que  esta  fue  la  contrata  que  se  celebro 
delante  de  Don  Manuel  Castro,  estando  Yd  alii  tambien.  Era  Yd. 
testigo  de  asestencia  sabiendo  el  contenido  del  papel  o  como  lo  sabe 
Vd.   - 

Resp.  37. — Se  que  esta  fue  la  contrata  que  se  celebro  delante  de 
Don  Manuel  Castro  porque  yo  consideraba  que  estaba  alii  de  testigo  y 
lei  el  papel  y  sabia  lo  que  contenia. 

Preg.  38. — Quienes  fueron  las  partes  contratadas  en  esa  contrata 
original  cuando  fue  celebrado,  que  se  hizo  con  el  original  y  adonde  esta 
ahora. 

Resp.  38. — Las  partes  fueron  las  mismas  que  dice  esta  copia  ;  fue 
celebrado  el  dia  de  la  fecha  de  la  contrata  que  se  se  por  esta  copia  no 
se  que  se  hizo  con  la  original  quedaria  en  manos  de  los  interesados  pero 
ultimamente  ho  oido  decir  que  el  Sor  Forbes  lo  tenia. 


656 

Preg.  39. — Que  Seiior  Forbes. 

Resp.  39. — El  Senor  Forbes  de  Santa  Clara. 

Preg.  40. — En  que  lugar  fue  celebrada  la  contrata  original. 

Resp.  40. — En  la  Mision  de  Santa  Clara. 

Preg.  41. — No  fue  depositada  la  contrata  original  en  la  casa  donde 
fue  firinado,  en  Santa  Clara  6  en  el  Juzgado  del  cual  era  Vd.  Juez  en 
el  Pueblo  de  San  Jose*. 

Resp.  41. — No  me  acuerdo  ;  no  me  puedo  accordar  aunque  he  es- 
tado  haciendo  recuerdos. 

Preg.  42. — El  dia  de  la  vista  del  jucio  de  Tobin  contra  Walkinshaw 
en  el  juzgado  que  llaman  "  The  Circuit  Court  of  the  United  States, 
Dist.  of  California,"  Encuentro  que  segun  las  notas  del  Juez  Hoffman 
uno  de  los  Jueses  que  oyeron  dicha  causa  que  Vd  dio  el  testimonio  si- 
guente  tocante  a  esta  escritura  de  compania  es  decir. 

"  Existia  una  escritura  de  compania  entre  Castillero  y  otros  :  se  ha- 
cien  en  1845.  La  misma  escritura  dira  la  fecha.  Fue  ante3  de  ha- 
berse  hecho  la  concesion.  No  conocia  yo  el  contenido  de  la  Escritura. 
Los  socios  eran  Castillero,  Castro,  El  Padre  y  los  Robles.  La  escritu- 
ra fue  celebrada  delante  de  mi  como  Alcalde.  Fue  firmado  por  el 
Genl.  Castro  El  Padre  Real  Los  Robles  y  Castillero  Todos  ellos  firma- 
ron  en  mi  presencia.  La  original  fue  depositada  en  Santa  Clara  en  la 
Casa  donde  fue  firmada.  Fue  depositada  en  el  Juzgado  del  cual  yo 
era  Juez  en  San  Jose :  Desde  que  yo  sali  de  alii  no  se  que  se  habia 
hecho  con  aquellos  archivos,  puede  ser  que  esten  alii  todavia. 

Observe  Yd  las  diferencias  que  hay  entre  el  testimonio  que  dio  Yd 
entonces  y  el  que  ha  dado  hoy  y  diga  como  puede  explicar,  o  reconci- 
liar  de  dichas  diferencias.  Y  segan  las  mismas  notas  ha  dicho  Yd. 
"  No  me  acuerdo  si  estuvo  Castro  presente  cuando  se  celebro  la  origi- 
nal "  Como  puede  Yd  reconciliar  esa  repuesta  tambien  con  el  testimo- 
nia  que  ha  dado  Yd  ahora. 

Resp.  42. — No  puede  decir  mas  que  lo  que  ya  he  dicho  ante  los 
jueses  y  es  lo  que  tengo  presente  :  quien  decin  que  todo  lo  que  dige 
ante  los  Jueses  es  la  verdad  o  de  lo  cual  me  puede  acordar  con  mas 
exactitud. 

Preg.  43. — Es  esa  la  vinica  explicacion  que  puede  Yd  dar  de  las 
contradicciones  que  existen  en  lo  que  dijo  Yd  delante  de  los  jueses  y 
lo  dice  Yd  ahora. 

Resp.  43. — Si  es  :  Por  no  contradecirme  en  lo  que  ya  he  dicho  por 
equivocacion. 

Preg.  44. — Tiene  Yd  una  memoria  muy  mala  :  No  puede  Yd.  acor- 
darse  por  un  ano  de  las  declaraciones  que  ha  dado  bajo  juramento.  No 
puede  Yd  acordarse  de  hechos  como  ocurieron  en  su  misma  presencia. 

Resp.  44. — Se  me  olvidad  las  cosas  que  he  dicho  antes,  porque  no 
tengo  cabaza  para  responder  a  preguntas  sobre  preguntas.  Mi  con- 
fimden. 


657 

Preg.  45. — El  los  cuatro  instrumentos  que  componen  el  contenido 
del  Documento  ante  dicho  presentado  por  S.  0.  Houghton  cuantas  let- 
ras  diferentes  encuentra  Yd.  sin  contar  las  firmas. 

Resp.  45. — La  caratula  es  una  letra.  El  decreto  en  el  margen  es 
otra,  la  peticion  de  Castro  es  otra  letra.  La  primera  representacion 
de  Castillero  es  otra  letra,  la  segunda  representacion  de  Castillero  no 
se  si  es  diferente  de  la  peticion  de  Castro  o  no.  Mi  opinion  es  que  el 
acto  de  posecion  es  en  la  misma  letra  que  la  caratula ;  solamente  que 
es  mas  pequeiia  la  letra  del  acto. 

Preg.  46. — No  esta  cada  uno  las  dos  representaciones  de  Castillero 
y  el  acto  de  posecion  en  letra  diferente.  Cuantas  firmas  diferentes 
tienen  esos  tres  papeles,  j  esta  alguno  de  los  dichos  tres  papeles  escri- 
tos  en  letra  de  alguno  de  las  tres  personas  que  los  firmaron. 

.  Resp.  46. — Los  dichos  tres  papeles  estan  letra  diferente  :  Hay  en 
ellos  cinco  firmas  de  de  las  cuales  cuatro  son  diferentes.  Ninguno  de 
dichos  papeles  esta  en  letra  de  cualquera  de  los  que  los  firmaron  en  mi 
opinion. 

Preg.  47. — Como  dos  de  estos  papeles  cortos  fueron  presentado  a 
Vd  como  Alcalde  y  el  otro  fue  Executado  delante  de  Vd  como  Alcalde 
puede  Vd  explicar  porque  se  emplearon  siete  manos  diferentes  en  ha- 
cer  y  formarlos. 

Resp.  47. — Yo  fuice  el  ultimo  como  Alcalde  y  Sunol  y  Noriega  la 
firmaron  como  testigos.  El  que  pedia  Castillero  firmaba  la  peticion. 
La  segunda  representacion  de  Castillero  puede  haber  sido  escrito  por 
el  mismo  pero  no  estoy  seguro  porque  se  parece  la  enbien  a  letra  de 
Benito  Diaz.  Hubieron  tantas  manos  diferentes  porque  asi  comen- 
diaro. 

Preg.  48. — Adonde  se  hizo  ese  documento  que  pertecede  ser  acto 
de  posecion. 

Resp.  48. — No  tiengo  presente  pero  es  documento  legal. 

Preg.  49. — Fue  o  no  fue  hecho  en  el  Juzgado  del  Pueblo  de  San 
Jose  como  dice  el  mismo  documento  que  se  hizo. 

Resp.  49. — Debe  haber  sido  en  el  Juzgado  pero  no  se  si  fue  alii  o 
en  casa  de  Sunol  en  una  de  los  dos  partes  se  hizo. 

Preg.  50. — En  aquellos  dias  tenia  Yd  como  Alcalde  algun  secreta- 
rio  si  tenia  quien  era. 

Resp.  50. — Fernandez  era  mi  secretario  pero  yo  emple6  a  Gutierrez 
para  escribir. 

Preg.  51. — Empleo  Yd  a  Gutierrez  para  escribir  alguno  de  esos 
papeles  y  si  lo  empleo  para  cual  de  ellos. 

Resp.  51. — Lo  emplio  para  escribir  los  todos.  Menos  los  peticiones. 
El  se  empleo  en  Escribir  lo  que  he  dicho  que  son  sus  formas  o  saber  el 
acto  de  possecion  y  la  escritura  de  compania  ;  lo  emplie  con  consenti- 
miento  de  los  intersados. 


658 

Preg.  52. — El  tal  Fernandez  que  fiie*  secretario  de  Vd.  es  la  misma 
persona  que  fue  examinado  aqui  como  testigo  hace  poeos  dias  ? 

Resp.  52. — Es  la  misma  persona. 

Preg.  53. — La  casa  de  Suiiol  de  la  cual  ha  hablado  Vd  es  la  misma 
casa  donde  el  vive  ahora  en  San  Jose. 

Resp.  53. — No  es  la  misma,  la  casa  de  que  yo  hablaba  la  quito  y 
hizo  otra  nueva  el  mismo  solar. 

Preg.  54. — Que  ocupacion  tenia  entonces  el  tal  Gutierrez  de  quien 
ha  hablado  Vd.     Y  en  donde  se  ocupaba  el  en  sus  negocios. 

Resp.  54. — Tenia  el  durante  algun  tiempo  una  escuela  cerca  de  la 
casa  de  Sunol :  se  ocupaba  en  sus  negocios  en  vecindas  del  pueblo. 

Preg.  55. — Tenia  el  una  escuela  cerca  de  la  casa  de  Sunol  cuando 
escribio  el  acto  de  posesion. 

Resp.  55. — No  tengo  presente  si  todavia  tenia  su  escuela  el  alii, 
puede,  ser  que  todavia  estaba  alii. 

Preg.  56. — Escribio  el,  el  acto  de  posesion  en  el  Juzgado,  en  la  casa 
de  Sunol  o  en  la  escuela. 

Resp.  56. — No  tengo  presente  en  que  punto  escribio. 

Preg.  57. — No  lo  escribio  el  cuando  Vd  o  las  partes  interesados  con 
el  conocimiento  de  Vd.  la  Emplearon  para  escribirlo  ? 

Resp.  57. — Si. 

Preg.  58. — Entonces  no  tiene  Vd.  el  manor  recuerdo  tocante  al  lu- 
gar  donde  lo  escribio  y  si  tiene  que  recuerdo  es  ? 

Resp.  58. — No  puedo  acordarme  exactamente  si  fue  en  el  Juzgado 
o  en  casa  de  Suiiol  otra  parte  de  mi  jurisdiccion ;  porque  el  Alcalde 
tenia  jurisdiccion  en  todo  el  Pueblo. 

Preg.  59. — Lo  escribio  el  en  presencia  de  Vd.  o  en  el  mismo  dia 
que  Vd  lo  firmo  y  poco  antes  de  haberlo  Vd  firmado. 

Resp  59. — No  me  acuerdo  pero  mi  opinion  es  que  todo  se  hizo  el 
mismo  dia  que  lo  firmamos. 

Preg.  60. — Adonde  era  el  lindero  del  pueblo  del  cado ;  hacia  la 
mision  de  Santa  Clara  en  el  aiio  1845. 

Resp.  60. — El  Rio  de  Guadalupe  era  el  lindero  de  ese  lado  pero  la 
jurisdiccion  de  los  Alcaldes  iba  hasta  el  arroyo  de  San  Francisquito. 
El  Corte  Madera. 

Preg.  61. — No  estaban  el  juzgado  y  la  casa  de  Sunol  situados  am- 
bos  en  el  Pueblo  de  San  Jose\ 

Resp. — Si. 

Preg.  62. — Como  sucede  que  en  el  testimonio  que  dio  Vd.  en  con- 
testacion  a  las  prejuntas  de  abogado  de  actor,  hablo  Vd  con  alguna 
duda  tocante  a  la  letra  del  acto  de  posesion  y  ahora  dice  Vd  que  Vd 
mismo  o  las  partes  interesados  con  conocimiento  de  Vd  emplearon  a 
Gutierrez  para  escribir  ese  papel.  Si  el  fue  empleado  de  ese  modo, 
cemo  no  podia  Vd  hablar  con  certeza  tocante  a  esa  letra. 

Resp.  61. — Yo  he  dicho  siempre  que  Gutierrez  era  el  que  escribio 


659 

el  acto  de  posesion  pero  que  habia  muchos  que  escribieron  el  los  asun- 
tos  tocante  a  la  mina  habian  varios  Castaneda  y  otros. 

Preg.  62. — Todos  aquellos  que  estuvieron  escribiendo  en  los  asuntos 
tocante  a  la  mina  estuvieron  escribiendo  todos  al  mismo  tiempo. 

Resp.  62. — No  me  acuerdo. 

Preg.  63. — Acuerde  se  Vd  de  los  nombres  de  todos  aquellos  que 
estuvieron  escribiendo  en  los  asuntos  tocante  a  la  mina  o  que  estuvie- 
ron presente  mientras  que  se  escribia  estos  papeles  como  partes  intere- 
sados  o  testigos  o  con  otra  calidad,  lo  mejor  que  puede  Yd  acordarse 
ahora. 

Resp.  63. — Me  acuerdo  que  Sunol  y  Noriega  estuvieron  presente 
como  testigos  y  yo  como  Alcalde. — No  tengo  presente  quenes  otras 
estavian  alii  en  ese  momento. 

Preg.  64. — Esos  son  todos  de  las  cuales  se  puede  Vd  acordar.  No 
estubo  su  secretario  Fernandez  presente  mientras  que  se  escribia  estos 
papeles  o  cuando  el  acto  de  posesion  fue  executado  por  Vd.  y  firmado 
Antonio  Sunol  como  testigo. 

Resp.  64. — No  me  acuerdo  si  estuvo  Fernandez  alii  o  no  los  que  he 
nombrado  son  todos  de  los  cuales  me  puede  acordar  que  estuvieron  alii 
en  ese  momento. 

Preg.  66. — Que  si  los  Alcaldes  no  tenian  costumbre  de  emplear  a 
bus  secretarios  en  escribir  papeles  oficiales  y  como  testigos  de  sus  actos 
oficiales.  Porque  fue  que  su  secretario  de  Vd  no  escribio  ninguno  de 
los  papeles  tocante  a  esta  mina  y  que  se  llamaron  a  otras  personas  para 
servir  de  testigos  de  su  acto  de  posesion. 

Resp.  66. — Si  tenian  esa  costumbre  pero  podian  los  Alcaldes  llamar 
a  otros.  Mi  secretario  no  escribio  ninguno  de  esos  papeles  y  otras  per- 
sonas sirvieron  de  testigos  porque  yon  quize  hacerlo  asi ;  asi  me  con- 
vinia. 

Preg.  67. — Caando  su  acto  de  posesion  estuvo  todo  completo  que 
hizo  Vd  con  el. 

Resp.  67. — Gutierrez  se  quedo  con  los  papeles  para  arreglarlos  y 
poner  los  en  los  archivos  el  se  encargo  de  todo. 

Preg.  68. — Cuantos  papeles  habian  que  arreglos  se  tenio  que  hacer 
y  siendo  este  un  acto  oficial  y  siendo  Vd  Alcalde  y  encargado  de  sus 
propios  archivos  como  no  se  quedo  Vd.  con  los  papeles  y  no  los  archivo 
Vd  mismo. 

Resp.  68. — No  tengo  presente  cuantos  papeles  habian,  se  tenia  que 
ponerles  la  caratula  y  cueviebos  el  Secretario  es  el  que  esta  encargado 
del  juzgado  y  Gutierrez  se  quedo  con  ellos  para  entregarlos  al  secre- 
tario. 

Preg.  69. — Hubo  algun  otro  papel  a  mas  del  papel  que  ha  sido  pre- 
sentado  aqui  por  S.  0.  Houghton.  La  Exutara  de  Compania  fue  uno 
de  los  papeles  que  quedaron  con  Gutierrez  para  que  el  los  arreglase  y 
los  pusiese  en  los  archivos. 


660 

Resp.  69. — El  primeramente  mencionado  fue  uno  de  ellos ;  pero  no 
se  si  el  otro  fue"  uno  de  ellos  o  no. 

Preg.  70. — Sabe  Vd  lo  que  son  Rotulones  y  si  sabe  que  son. 

Resp.  70. — No  entiendo  esa  palabra  se  entiende  de  mil  modos  como 
nosotros  lo  entendemos  quere  decir  las  letras  que  se  ponen  encinia  de 
un  espediente — letras  grandes. 

Preg.  71. — Hablando  de  minas  que  son  Rotulones  ? 

Resp.  71. — Yo  entiendo  que  son  avisos  pulicos  que  se  ponen  en  al- 
gunos  parages  publicos  avisando  a  el  publico  el  que  tenga  algun  dere- 
cho  6  reclamo  se  debe  presentar  ante  el  juez — o  si  no,  estando  el  tiem- 
po  cumplido  se  dara  la  posesion. 

Preg.  72. — Quien  puso  los  rotulos  para  esta  mina — en  que  paraje 
los  pusieron  y  durante  cuantos  dias. 

Res.  72. — Se  pusieron  en  diferentes  puntos  en  el  juzgado — creo  que 
por  60  dias,  pero  no  no  se  lo  que  dice  la  ley — no  estoy  seguro  tocante 
al  tiempo  ni  sobre  lo  que  dice  la  ley. 

Preg.  73. — Que  es  lo  que  Vd  quiere  decir  cuando  dice  en  diferentes 
puntos  en  el  juzgado — Suponga  Yd.  que  este  cuarto  fue  el  juzgado — 
de  Yd  una  explicacion  de  lo  que  quiere  decir. 

Res.  73. — Quiero  decir  que  se  pusieron  en  los  lugares  mas  publicos 
en  la  Sala  del  Juzgado. 

Preg.  74. — Yd  se  informo  en  aquel  tiempo  de  los  requisites  de  la 
ley — puso  Yd  los  Rotulones  durante  todo  los  dias  que  la  ley  requeria. 

Resp.  74. — Yo  sabia  entonces  cuales  eran  los  requisites  de  la  ley — 
no  me  acuerdo  bien  pero  creo,  que  cumpli  con  la  ley.  Yo  y  Castillero 
teniamos  la  ley.     La  ordenanza  de  mineria. 

Preg.  75. — En  la  primera  representacion  de  Castillero  que  Yd  esta 
viendo  dice  el  que  el  habia  descuvierto  esta  mina.  Porque  recibio  Yd 
esa  Representacion  cuando  Yd  sabia  que  era  falso  porque  los  Chaboyos 
lo  habian  ocupardo  en  el  ano  1835 — y  los  Indios  desde  mucho  tiempo 
tenian  costumbre  de  Yd  alii  a  traer  pintura  para  la  Iglesia  como  Yd 
ha  dicho  ya  en  su  testimonio. 

Resp.  75. — Castillero  fud  el  que  dio  a  luz  el  metal — el  azogue — El 
presento  ante  mi  el  metal  como  prueba  de  lo  que  decia. 

Preg.  76. — Le  a  Yd  esa  representacion  dice  algo  de  azogue — que 
metal  es  el  que  dice  que  dice  que  la  mina  contenia. 

Resp.  76. — La  representacion  habia  de  oro  y  Plata  pero  se  sabia 
que  tenia  azogue  por  que  yo  mismo  lo  vi. 

Preg.  77. — Si  se  sabia  que  la  mina  contenia  azogue  cuando  le  fue 
presentado  a  Yd  aquella  primera  representacion  porque  no  hablaba  la 
representacion  de  azogue.  Porque  no  se  menciono  juntamente  con  oro 
y  plata — no  se  consideraba  entonces  que  el  azogue  era  metal  precioso. 

Resp.  77. — No  se  porque  no  se  menciono  el  azogue  en  esa  represen- 
tacion— Se  sabia  entonces  que  el  azogue  era  metal  precioso. 

Preg.  78. — Si  cuando  se  hizo  la  primera  representacion  se  sabia  que 


661 

la  mina  contenia,  arogue  como  sucedio,  que  once  dias  despues  Castille- 
ro  presento  una  segunda  representacion  en  la  cual  declaro  que  habia 
descubierto  el,  el  azogue  despues  de  halarse  hecho  la  primera  repre- 
sentacion. 

Antes  de  contestar  a  esta  pregunta  examine  la  segunda  representa- 
cion de  Castillero  que  esta  Yd  viendo. 

Resp.  78. — Yo  no  tengo  presente  porque  se  hizo  esto — Es  cosa  ya 
muy  vieja  y  no  puedo  acordarme. 

Preg.  79. — Si  es  cosa  tan  vieja  que  Yd  no  puede  acordarse  del  mo- 
do  en  que  fue  manejado — no  podria  ser  que  estos  papeles,  nunca  fueron 
presentadas  ante  Yd  y  que  se  equivoca  Yd  sobre  este  punto. 

Resp.  79. — Yo  me  acuerdo  los  documentos  por  supuesto  porque  los 
vi  y  los  dege  en  manos  de  Gutierrez.  Estuvieron  en  manos  mias  como 
autoridad. 

Preg.  80. — Ha  dicho  Yd  que  tenia  "  Las  Ordenanzas  de  Mineria  " 
los  tenia  Yd  en  un  libro  que  se  llama  "  Ordenanzas  de  Mineria.' ' 

Resp.  80. — Yo  pienso  que  si. 

Preg.  81. — Conoseria  Yd  el  libro  si  lo  volviese  Yd  a  ver. 

Resp.  81. — No  se  conoseria  el  libro  ahora — porque  ha  pasado  mucho 
tiempo  y  era  cosa  que  nada  me  interesaba. 

Preg.  82. — Que  si  jamas  ha  visto  mas  que  ese  unico  libro  marcado 
"  Ordenanzas  de  Mineria"  si  Yd  ha  visto  mas  de  uno  no  eran  todas 
exactamente  iguales. 

Resp.  82. — Ese  fue  el  unico  que  yo  he  visto. 

Preg.  83. — Yea  Yd  ahora  el  ultimo  instrumento  contenido  en  el 
Documento  producido  por  S.  0.  Houghton  que  esta  viendo  Yd — y  que 
Yd  llama  su  acto  de  posesion  siendo  el  mismo  que  esta  firmador  por 
Yd  como  Alcalde  y  por  Antonio  Suiiol  y  Jose  Noriega  como  testigos 
de  asistencia  diga  Yd  si  puede  porque  se  dijo  el  dia  en  bianco — esdecir 
de  este  modo.     "  Diciembre  de  mil  ocho  cientos  cuarenta  y 

cinco. 

Resp.  83. — Yo  pienso  que  seria  por  olvido  en  la  prontitud. 

Preg.  84. — Que  quiere  Yd  decir  cuando  dice  u  en  la  prontitud," 
porque  se  apuraban  ? 

Resp.  84. — No  habia  apuracion,  pero  no  habiendo  malicia  ni  fraude 
ni  intenciones  malas  en  aquel  tiempe,  no  nos  fijamos  en  las  fechas,  no 
hizimos  atencion  a  eso. 

Preg.  85. — No  fue  este  instrumento  el  papel  mas  importante  tocan- 
te  a  la  mina.  Que  si  la  fecha  tomandola  juntamente  con  la  fecha  de 
la  representacion  una  parte  muy  importante  de  este  instrumento.  Pue- 
de Yd  indie arme  algun  otro  papel  importante  o  no  importante  tocante 
a  esta  mina  en  lo  cual  la  fecho  esta  en  bianco. 

Res.  85. — Yo  creo  que  ese  es  el  mas  importante  de  los  papeles  to- 
cantes  a  la  mina — la  fecha  es  parte  importante  de  el — no  se  si  hay  o 


662 

no  papel  tocante  a  la  mina  en  el  cual  no  esta  puesta  la  fecha  o  en  el 
cual  esta  la  fecha  en  bianco. 

Preg.  86. — Cuando  Vd  con  los  dichos  Sunol  y  Noriega  firmaron  el 
dicho  papel,  estaba  en  la  escritura  o  letra  precedente,  o  estaba  en  bian- 
co y  fue  puesto  despues  la  escritura  o  letra. 

Res.  86. — Cuando  nosotros  firmamos  ya  estaba  hecho  todo — el  acto 
estaba  todo  escrito. 

Preg.  87. — Porque  firma  Vd  un  acto  que  pretendia  conceder  3000 
varas  por  todos  rumbos  Encontro  Vd  alguna  autoridad  para  eso  en  las 
Ordenanzas  de  Mineria. 

Res.  87. — Porque  me  digo  Castillero  que  le  convenia  3000  varas  y 
entonces  le  deje  yo  que  las  tomase  por  todos  rumbos.  El  me  digo  que 
tenia  ese  derecho  por  ser  primer  descubridor  del  metal.  Segun  lo  que 
Castillero  me  digo  yo  crei  que  yo  como  Alcalde  tenia  autoridad  para 
hacer  eso  no  habiendo  otro  juez  de  letra  en  California,  El  era  hombre 
instruido  en  todos  esas  cosas.  El  me  digo  que  yo  era  juez  de  letras  y 
yo  me  consideraba  como  tal — no  habiendo  otro  juez  de  letras. 

Preg.  88. — Que  si  el  Pueblo  de  San  Jose'  no  estaba  en  el  Partido  o 
Districto  segundo  ?  si  el  Pueblo  de  San  Francisco  de  asis  no  era  la  ca- 
beza  del  Districto  en  ese  tiempo  no  era  Guerrero  Alcalde  de  primera 
dominacion — era  San  Francisco  en  ese  tiempo  y  como  tal  no  tenia  el 
los  poderes  de  juez  de  primera  instancia,  encluyendo  a  Vd  y  a  los  de- 
mas  Alcaldes  de  ese  partido  o  Districto ;  y  no  era  el  el  unico  Alcalde 
que  tenia  el  derecho  de  ser  llamado  Juez  de  letras. 

Res.  88. — San  Jose  estaba  en  el  segundo  districto.  No  me  acuerdo 
si  San  Francisco  de  Asis  6  Monterey  era  la  cabeza  del  Districto.  No 
me  acuerdo  si  Guerrero  fue  Alcalde  entonces.  No  se  si  el  tendria  el 
derecho  de  ser  llomado  Juez  de  letras. 

Preg.  89. — Que  laya  de  posesion  es  esta  de  que  ha  hablado  Vd  ? 
Quienes  fueron  con  Vd  a  la  Mina  ?  Que  agrimensor  tenian  y  que  in- 
strumentos  ?  Que  medidas  hicieron  ?  Que  obras  hicieron  Vds  ?  Cuan- 
tas  estacas  pusieron  Vds  ?  En  donde  y  por  quien  se  pusieron  ?  Diga 
todo  lo  que  ocurio.  Cuanto  tiempo  se  quedaron  Vds  alii.  Cuando  se 
volvieron  y  a  donde.  Diga  tambien  que  Profesor  de  Mineria  estaba 
alii  presente. 

Res.  89. — Sunol,  Noriega,  el  Padre  Real,  Castillero,  Gutierrez  y 
Fernandez  tambien  me  parece  otras  personas,  fueron  pero  no  fueron 
con  migo  a  la  mina.     No  me  acuerdo  quienes. 

Estos  mismos  llegaron  al  agujero  de  la  mina.  Estuvimos  alii  algun 
tiempo  y  mande  Uamar  al  sarjento  Jos6  Reyes  Berreyesa  a  su  Rancho. 
Estos  estuvieron  alii  y  otros  estuvieron  tambien  pero  no  me  acuerdo 
quienes.  No  hubo  agrimensor.  Castillero  tenia  una  aguja  pequena 
de  estos  que  se  llevan  en  la  balsa.  Yo  le  dige  a  Castillero  que  no  se 
podia  medir  con  cordel  porque  estaba  muy  quebrada  la  tierra  y  que  se 
tomara  el  las  3000  varas  por  la  parte  en  la  sierra  por  rumbos. 


663 

Todo  que  se  hablo  alii  se  escribio  en  un  borrador  todo  lo  que  yo  le 
decia  a  Castillero — esto  fue  la  unica  obra  que  hiziemos.  No  me  acu- 
erdo  haber  puesto  estaeas.  No  me  acuerdo  si  se  pusieron  o  no.  Que- 
damos  bastante  tiempo  en  la  mina  no  se  cuantas  horas  estuvimos  exa- 
minando  todo.  Nos  volvimos  a  San  Jose  a  donde  Uegamos  muy  tarde. 
El  unico  Profesor  de  Mineria  que  estuvo  alii  fue  Castillero  porque  el 
lo  entendia. 

Preg.  90. — El  terreno  de  que  dice  Vd  que  dio  posesion  de  este 
modo  estaba  en  su  forma  cuadrada  o  redondo  ? 

Res.  90. — No  se  si  estaba  redondo  o  cuadrado — porque  hize  la  di- 
vision por  rumbos.  Como  le  propusa  a  Castillero  es  decir  que  lo  to- 
mase  por  donde  estuviese  valdio  o  en  la  sierra  porque  los  Rancheros 
no  querian  sierra,  querian  puro  piano. 

Preg.  91. — Por  quien  mando  Vd  Uamar  a  Berreyesa.  De  la  mina 
envois  Vd.  Se  envio  decir  verbalmente  o  por  escrito  cuanto  tiempo  lo 
aguardo  Vd  ?  Como  vino  el  ?  De  donde  vino  el  ?  Cuanto  tiempo 
se  quedo  el  en  la  mina. 

Res.  91. — Por  un  hijo  de  Berreyesa  lo  mande  llamar.  De  la  mina 
envie.  Lo  mande  llamar  verbalmente  porque  le  habia  dicho  yo  antes 
que  iba  a  la  mina  en  ese  tiempo.  El  vino  luego  o  aguardo  poco  tiempo. 
Vino  a  Caballo  de  su  Rancho.  Se  quedo  hasta  que  nosotros  nos  vi- 
nimos. 

Preg.  92. — El  Sarjento  Berreyesa  y  ese  hijo  de  el  estan  vivos? 
En  donde  estaba  el  Genl.  Jose*  Castro  en  el  mes  de  Noviembre  del  aiio 
1845  y  quien  fue'  su  Secretario  de  el  si  tenia  uno. 

Res.  92. — El  Sarjento  Berreyesa  esta  muerto  pero  no  se  si  ese  hijo 
esta  vivo  o  muerto  porque  no  me  acuerdo  cual  de  los  hijos  era  pero  se 
que  fue  uno  de  ellos.  No  se  donde  estaba  el  Genl.  Castro  en  ese  mes. 
Castaiieda  fue  Secretario  de  el  pero  no  se  si  lo  fue  en  ese  mes  puede 
ser  que  halla  sido. 


Aque  se  empezo  de  nuevo  el  examen  por  parte  del  actor. 

Filed  Dec.  29th,  1857. 

J.  EDGAR  GRYMES, 

Deputy. 


664 

DEPOSITION  OF  SALYIO  PACHECO. 

United  States  District  Court,         ) 
Northern  District  of  California. ) 

San  Francisco,  Nov.  19,  1857. 

On  this  day,  before  Cutler  McAllister,  a  Commissioner  of  the 
United  States  for  the  Northern  District  of  California,  duly  au- 
thorized to  administer  oaths,  &c,  &c,  came  Salvio  Pacheco  a  wit- 
ness produced  on  behalf  of  the  Claimant  in  Case  No.  420,  being 
an  appeal  from  the  Board  of  Commissioners  to  ascertain  and  set- 
tle the  Private  Land  Claims  in  the  State  of  California,  in  Case 
No.  366  on  the  Docket  of  the  said  Board  of  Commissioners,  and 
was  duly  sworn  and  testified  as  follows — his  evidence  being  inter- 
preted by  Edwin  C.  Palmer — a  sworn  interpreter. 

Present. — The  United  States  Attorney  by  E.  Randolph;  A.  C. 
Peachy  for  Claimant. 

Questions  by  Attorney  for  Claimant. 

Question  1. — Your  name,  age,  and  place  of  residence  ? 

Answer  1. — Salvio  Pacheco  ;  65  ;  I  reside  in  Martinez,  in 
Contra  Costa  County. 

Ques.  2. — Look  at  the  Document  now  shown  you  marked  "  A  B  n 
attached  to  the  deposition  of  Jose  Fernandez  and  say  if  you  know 
in  whose  hand-writing  are  the  various  instruments  therein  con- 
tained, and  state  whether  you  are  acquainted  with  the  signature 
of  Pedro  Chaboya  and  whether  the  name  of  Pedro  Chaboya 
where  the  same  occurs  in  said  document  is  the  genuine  signature 
of  the  said  Chaboya. 

Ans.  2. — This  writing  was  made  in  the  Pueblo  of  San  Jose  in 
the  year  1846.  The  whole  of  the  body  of  this  document  is  in  my 
hand-writing  ;  I  am  acquainted  with  the  signature  of  Pedro  Cha- 
boya ;  the  signature  of  Chaboya  wherever  it  occurs  in  this  docu- 
ment is  his  genuine  signature. 

Ques.  3. — Look  at  the  date  of  the  certificate  signed  by  Pedro 
Chaboya  on  the  last  page  of  the  Document,  and  state  what  office 
you  held  at  that  time,  and  also  what  office  if  any  was  held  by 
Chaboya  at  the  date  of  said  instrument. 

Ans.  3. — I  was  Secretary  of  the  County  at  that  time  ;  at  that 
time,  Pedro  Chaboya  was  Alcalde  of  either  second  nomination, 
or  third,  I  am  not  certain  which. 

Ques.  4. — Look  at  the  document  produced  by  S.  0.  Houghton, 
on  his  examination  taken  in  this  cause  on  the  23d  day  of  October 


665 

1857,  and  examine  the  marginal  decree  on  the  first  page,  and  state 
if  you  know  in  whose  hand-writing  is  the  body  of  said  decree, 
and  whcB3  signature  is  affixed  to  the  said  decree. 

Ans.  4. — The  hand-writing  of  the  body  of  the  marginal  decree 
is  my  own  hand-writing,  and  the  signature  is  that  of  Dolores 
Pacheco,  First  Alcalde  ;  at  that  time  there  were  three  Alcaldes ; 
Dolores  Pacheco  was  the  first,  and  Pedro  Chaboya  and  Valentin 
Higuera  were  the  other  two  ;  I  do  not  remember  which  was  the 
second  Alcalde  of  those  two,  but  the  first  was  Dolores  Pacheco. 

Ques.  5. — Was  Dolores  Pacheco  a  relative  of  yours;  if  so,  how 
related  ? 

Ans.  5. — He  was  ;  he  was  my  brother,  he  is  dead  :  he  died  at 
the  Pueblo  of  San  Jose\  about  two  years  ago  more  or  less. 

Ques.  6. — At  the  time  referred  to  in  the  3d  question,  you  ans- 
wered that  you  were  Secretary  of  the  County.  Please  explain 
what  you  mean  by  that  ? 

Ans.  6. — At  the  time  of  the  date  of  the  certificate,  I  was  "  Es- 
cribiente  "  or  Secretary  of  the  Judge,  or  of  the  Justice  of  the 
Court  of  the  County  ;  I  was  nominated  by  the  Judge  of  the 
County,  who  was  Dolores  Pacheco,  and  the  appointment  was  con- 
firmed by  the  Government. 

Cross  Examination. 

Examination  adjourned  until  to-morrow  at  11  o'clock  A.  M., 
Nov.  20,  1857. 

San  Francisco,  Nov.  20,  1857. 

Deposition  of  Salvio  Pacheco  this  day  resumed. 

Present. — United  States  Attorney  by  E.  Randolph  ;  A.  C. 
Peachy  for  Claimant. 

Ques.  I. — When  did  Dolores  Pacheco  cease  to  be  Alcalde,  and 
who  succeeded  him? 

Ans.  1. — His  successors  were  the  Yankees  when  they  took  the 
place  in  the  year  1846  ;  Valentin  Higuera  and  myself  delivered 
the  Archives  of  San  Jose  to  the  troops  that  came  there  ;  I  do 
not  speak  of  the  Commodore,  but  of  the  people  who  rose  to  take 
the  country  ;  15  armed  men  came  to  the  house. 

Ques.  2. — Who  were  the  people  who  rose  to  take  the  country  ? 
Were  they  the  same  who  raised  the  Bear  flag,  in  Sacramento 
Valley  ;  who  captured  Genl.  Vallejo  at  Sonoma,  and  who  killed 
Sergeant  Jose*  Reyes  Berreyesa,  and  the  two  young  Haros  near 
San  Rafael  ? 
50 


666 
(Objected  to.) 

Ans.  2. — I  do  not  know  whether  they  were  the  same  who  raised 
the  Bear  flag,  or  those  who  came  with  the  Commodore  or  others  ; 
what  is  certain  is,  that  even  the  naturalized  foreigners  nearly  all 
of  them  took  up  arms  to  assist  the  Americans. 

Ques.  3. — What  office  was  it  you  say  you  held  ? 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans.  3. — Secretary  of  the  county  ;  clerk  ;  in  the  year  1846: 
Ques.  4. — How  many  counties  were  there  in  California  ? 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans.  4. — In  each  town  there  were  Alcaldes  and  Judges,  now 
they  are  called  a  county  ;  I  suppose  that  County  and  Jusgado,  or 
Court  are  the  same  thing. 

Ques.  5. — What  was  the  duties  of  the  first  Alcalde? 

(Question  objected  to  as  asking  the  witness'  legal  opinion.) 

Ans.  5. — To  give  to  everybody  what  belonged  to  him;  to  do 
justice  to  those  who  were  entitled  to  it  according  to  the  laws  by 
which  he  was  governed. 

Ques.  6. — What  were  the  duties  of  the  second  Alcalde  and  of 
the  third  Alcalde  ? 

(Question  objected  for  the  same  reason  as  to  the  foregoing 
question.) 

Ans.  6. — The  same  ;  in  the  absence  of  the  first  and  second  the 
third  acted. 

Ques.  7. — Was  not  Valentin  Higuerco  second  Alcalde,  or  first 
Supplente  ? 

Ans.  7. — I  do  not  remember  whether  he  was  first  or  second  Al- 
calde, but  I  think  he  was  third  Alcalde,  because  the  Documents 
shown  me  yesterday  appear  to  be  signed  by  Pedro  Chaboya  as 
second  Alcalde,  this  must  have  been  on  account  of  the  sickness  or 
absence  of  the  first. 

Ques:  8. — Did  you  see  in  the  paper  shown  you  yesterday  that 
Pedro  Chaboya  was  second  Alcalde  ? 

(Question  objected  to  on  the  ground  that  it  is  asking  the  wit- 
ness' remembrance  as  to  the  contents  of  a  written  document  about 
which  the  witness  was  examiued  in  chief  only  as  regards  the  hand- 
writing and  the  signatures.) 


667 

Ans.  8; — The  paper  does  not  say  that  he  was  second  Alcalde, 
but  according  to  my  view  he  acted  as  such. 

Ques.  9. — After  the  15  armed  Yankees  took  the  office,  and  the 
papers,  what  became  of  you  ?  Where  did  you  go  to  and  what 
did  you  do  ? 

Ans.  9. — I  came  to  my  Rancho  of  the  "Monte  del  Diablo,"  to 
attend  to  my  private  affairs. 

Ques.  10. — Have  you  lived  at  your  Rancho,  and  been  attending 
to  your  private  affairs  ever  since  ? 

Ans.  10. — I  have. 

Ques.  11. — When  the  Yankees  took  the  Plaza,  the  office,  and 
the  papers,  where  was  Genl.  Jose  Castro  ? 

Ans.  11. — He  had  retired  towards  the  Pueblo  of  Los  Angeles, 
I  learned  that  he  went  to  Sonora  in  Mexico. 

Ques.  12. — How  long  after  Genl.  Castro  retired,  was  it,  that 
the  Yankees  entered  ? 

Ans.  12. — I  do  not  remember  how  many  days  after. 

Ques.  13. — How  long  after  the  Yankee  Commodores  took  Mon- 
terey and  San  Francisco,  was  it,  before  you  gave  up  the  papers  at 
San  Jose,  to  the  15  armed  men  ? 

Ans.  13. — When  I  delivered  the  papers  at  San  Jose,  the  Com- 
modore was  here,  and  he  afterwards  left  to  raise  the  flag  at  Mon- 
terey. 

Ques.  14. — Who  asked  you  to  make  that  copy  which  was  shown 
you  yesterday  ? 

Ans.  14. — The  Alcalde  Pedro  Chaboya. 

Ques.  15. — When  did  he  ask  you  ? 

(Question  objected  to.) 

Ans.  15. — The  year  that  he  was  in  office,  which  was  1846. 

Ques.  16. — How  long  before  the  Yankees  came  was  it  that  it 
was  made  ? 

Ans.  16. — I  do  not  remember  how  long,  nor  how  many  months  be- 
fore the  Yankees  arrivedafterwards  ;  by  the  arrival  of  the  Yan- 
kees. I  "mean  the  time  when  thej  took  the  archieves  of  the  govern- 
ment from  us. 

Ques.  17. — Was  it  on  the  27th  or  the  29th,  that  you  entered  the 
marginal  decree  on  the  petition  of  Genl.  Castro ;  in  the  copy  of  which 
you  have  testified,  the  seven  seems  to  have  been  changed  into  a 
nine  ;  was  that  change  made  by  yourself? 

(Question  objected  to,  because  it  asks  the  witness  to  state  from  his 
memory  the  date  of  an  official  act,  which  act  is  in  writing,  which  wri- 
ting is  in  the  hands  of  the  Att'y  for  the  U.  S.  the  signatures  of  the 
same  having  been  duly  proved.) 


668 

(The  documents  then  referred  to  were  then  handed  to  the  witness 
by  the  United  States  Att'y,  and  after  having  examined  them  he  an- 
swered as  follows.) 

Ans.  17. — Twenty-nine  is  written  in  both,  this  is  clear,  there  is  no 
change.     I  have  not  said  that  it  appeared  to  have  been  changed. 

(The  question  as  propounded  to  the  witness  in  Spanish,  contained 
a  statement  that  the  witness  had  testified  that  there  appeared  to  be  a 
change  in  the  copy,  "  A.  B.") 

Ques.  18. — Was  Genl.  Jose*  Castro,  in  San  Jose*  on  the  27th,  28th, 
or  29th  of  June,  1846  ? 

Ans.  18. — I  do  not  remember ;  he  retired  in  June  or  July.  He 
was  in  Santa  Clara  at  that  time,  June  or  July ;  while  he  was  there 
they  were  up  this  way,  and  when  he  retired,  the  Yankees  entered  and 
took  the  archives  from  us. 

Ques.  19. — Who  handed  Genl,  Castro's  petition  to  you  for  you  to 
write  the  marginal  order  on  it ;  was  it  Gen.  Castro  himself  ? 

(Question  objected  to  as  leading,  and  asking  about  new  matter.) 

Ans.  19. — Dolores  Pacheco,  the  Alcalde,  gave  it  to  me. 

Ques.  20. — Did  Gen.  Castro  himself  bring  it  to  the  Alcalde  :  was 
he  at  the  Jusgado,  or  in  San  Jose*,  on  that  day  ? 

Ans.  20. — I  do  not  know. 

Ques.  21 — Was  this  marginal  decree  entered  on  the  Alcalde's  books, 
or  not  ?  When  Dolores  Pacheco  made  concessions  of  lots  in  June, 
1846,  did  he  not  have  his  orders  entered  on  the  book  ? 

(Question  objected  to,  especially  the  latter  part  of  it,  as  being  en- 
tirely irrelevant.) 

Ans.  21. — That  decree  was  placed,  or  copied  in  the  book.  When 
Dolores  Pacheco  made  those  concessions,  they  were  written  in  a  book. 

Ques.  22. — Will  you  take  the  pen  and  write  the  following  words  as 
they  are  read  to  you,  and  sign  your  name  with  your  rubric  ? 

Ans.  22 — The  witness  writes, 

(Before  the  witness  writes,  the  attorney  for  the  claimant  objects  to 
this  proceeding.) 

"  Pueblo  de  S.  Jose  G.  Junio  29,  de  1846. 
Como  lo  pide  inclullase  este  y  Archibase. 

SALVIO  PACHECO." 

(The  witness  states  if  there  is  any  difference  in  this  handwriting 


669 

and  the  handwriting  of  the  decree,  it  is  because  he  has  not  written 
for  8  or  10  years.) 

Ques.  23. — Now  please  write  the  words  "  June  27,"  and  tell  me  if 
that  is  the  way  you  always  sign  your  name,  or  make  you  rubric  ? 

(Att'y  for  claimant  objects  to  the  whole  proceeding,  in  making  the 
witness  write  in  this  deposition.) 

"  Junio,  27." 

Ans.  23. — At  first  I  signed  differently,  but  afterwards  I  have  al- 
ways signed  and  made  my  rubric  in  this  manner. 

Ques.  24. — Do  you  know  how  to  make  the  rubric  of  Dolores  Pa- 
checo  ? 

Ans.  24.— No. 

Ques.  25. — Do  you  not  know  that  there  exists  among  the  archives  in 
San  Jose,  a  declaration  of  your  brother  Dolores  Pacheco,  made  be- 
fore James  W.  Weeks,  Alcalde,  to  the  effect,  that  on  the  17th  or  18th 
day  of  June,  1846,  or  thereabouts,  he,  the  said  Dolores  Pacheco, 
turned  over  the  Alcaldeship  to  Valentin  Higuera,  and  never  after- 
wards occupied  himself  in  it,  or  performed  any  official  act  ? 

(Question  objected  to  on  the  ground  that  it  asks  the  witness  what 
are  the  contents  of  a  written  instrument,  whose  existence  the  question 
seems  to  acknowledge,  as  well  as  the  place  where  it  may  be  found.) 

Ans.  25. — When  Castro  departed  for  the  South  with  the  people, 
Pedro  Chaboya,  and  Valentin  Higuera  were  left  by  him  in  charge  of 
the  administration  of  justice,  he  left  them  as  2d  and  3d  Alcaldes, 
Dolores  Pacheco  being  first;  a  few  days  after  the  withdrawal  of  Castro, 
Chaboya  fell  sick,  and  Valentin  Higuera  became  Alcalde  in  his 
stead.  The  Americans  arrived  soon  after,  and  he  and  I  delivered 
the  house  and  archives  to  the  American  Government. 

Deposition  taken  subject  to  all  exceptions,  except  as  to  the  form  of 
the  questions. 

SALVIO  PACHECO. 

Subscribed  and  sworn  to  before  me  this  20  Novr.  1857. 

cutler  McAllister. 

U.  S.  Com. 

SEAL 


670 

Cross-Examination  of  Salvio  Pacheco. 

Preg.  1. — Cuando  Salio  Dolores  Pacheco  del  empleo  de  Alcalde  y 
quien  fue  su  successor. 

Resp.  1. — Sus  successores  fueron  los  Yankees  cuando  tomaron  la 
plaza  en  el  ano  1846.  Yo  y  Valentin  Higuera  entregamos  los  archi- 
vos  de  San  Jose*  a  la  tropa  que  vinieron  alii.  No  hablo  del  commodore 
sino  de  la  gente  que  se  levantaron  para  tomar  el  pais,  vieron  a  la  casa 
quenice  hombres  armados.  * 

Preg.  2. — Quienes  fueron  los  que  se  levantaron  para  tomar  el  pais. 
Fueron  los  mismos  que  levantaron  la  bandera  del  oso  en  Yalle  del  Sa- 
cramento ;  que  tomaron  preso  al  General  Vallejo  en  Sonoma  y  que 
mataron  a  Jose  Reyes  Berreyesa  y  los  dos  jovenes  Haros  cerca  de  San 
Rafael. 

Res.  2. — No  se  si  fueron  los  que  levantaron  la  bandera  del  oso  o  los 
que  vinieron  con  el  Comodore,  otros.  Lo  cierto  es  que  hasta  los  es- 
trangeros  naturalizados  casi  todos  tomaran  las  armas  para  ayudar  a  los 
Americanos. 

Preg.  3. — Que  empleos  dijo  Vd  que  habia  tenido. 

Res.  3. — Secretario  del  Condado,  escribiente,  en  el  ano  '46. 

Preg.  4. — Cuantos  Condados  habian  en  California  ? 

Res.  4. — En  cada  poblacion  habian  Alcalde  y  jueces  ;  ahora  los 
llaman  Condado  yo  pienzo  que  Condado  es  lo  mismo  que  Juzgado. 

Preg.  5. — Cuales  eran  los  deberes  del  Alcalde  primero. 

Res.  5. — Dar  a  cada  uno  lo  que  era  suyo  y  hacer  justicia  a  el  que 
la  tenia  ;  segun  las  leyes  que  le  regian. 

Preg.  6. — Cuales  eran  los  deberes  del  Alcalde  segundo  y  del  Al- 
calde tercero. 

Res.  6. — Los  mismos.  En  ansencia  del  primero  obraba  el  segundo. 
En  ansencia  del  primero  y  segundo  obraba  el  tercero. 

Preg.  7. — No  era  Valentin  Higuera  Alcalde  segundo  o  suplente 
primero  ? 

Resp.  7. — No  me  acuerdo  si  era  Alcalde  primero  o  segundo  pero, 
me  parece  que  era  el  tercero  porque  en  los  documentos  que  me  ensen- 
aron  ayer ;  se  ve  firmado  Pedro  Chaboya  como  Alcalde  segundo  y  eso 
seria  por  enfermedad  6  ansencia  del  primero. 

Preg.  8. — Vio  Vd  en  el  papel  que  le  ensenaron  a  Vd  ayer  que  Pe- 
dro Chaboya  era  Alcalde  segundo. 

Res.  8. — El  papel  no  dice  que  el  era  Alcalde  segundo,  pero  a  mi 
concepto  el  obio  como  tal. 

Preg.  9. — Despues  que  los  quince  Yankees  armados  tomaron  la  ofi- 
cina  y  los  papeles  que  le  sucedio  a  Vd  ;  a  donde  se  fue  y  que  hizo  Vd. 

Res.  9. — Me  vine  a  mi  Rancho  del  Monte  del  Diablo  a  ocuparme 
de  mis  negocios  particulares. 


671 

Preg.  10. — Desde  ese  tiempo  se  ha  quedado  Vd  viviendo  siempre 
en  su  Rancho  y  ocupado  en  sus  negocios  particulars  ? 

Res.  10.— Si. 

Preg.  11. — Cuando  los  "  Yankees  "  tomaron  la  plaza  la  oficinay  los 
papeles  en  donde  se  hallaba  el  Genl.  Jose*  Castro. 

Res.  11. — Estaba  el  retirado  en  direccion  del  Pueblo  de  Los  An- 
geles.    Supe  que  despues  se  retiro  el  para  Sonoma  en  Mexico. 

Preg.  12. — Cuanto  tiempo  despues  de  la  retirada  del  Genl.  Castro 
entraron  los  Yankees. 

Res.  12. — No  me  aeuerdo  ;  cuantos  dias  despues. 

Preg.  13. — Cuanto  tiempo  despues  que  los  Comodores  Yankees  to- 
maron Monterey  y  San  Francisco,  fue  cuando  Vd  entrego  los  papeles 
en  San  Jose*  a  los  quince  hombres  armados. 

Res.  13. — Cuando  yo  entregue  los  papeles  en  San  Jose*  el  Comodore 
estaba  aqui  y  despues  se  fue  a  levantar  la  Bandera  en  Monterey. 

Preg.  14. — Quien  le  dijo  a  Vd  que  hiciese  esa  copia  que  le  ensena- 
ron  ayer. 

Res.  14. — El  Alcalde  Pedro  Chaboya. 

Preg.  15. — Cuando  le  digo  que  lo  hiciese. 

Res.  15. — El  ano  de  su  empleo  que  fue  en  '46. 

Preg.  16. — Cuanto  tiempo  antes  de  la  llegada  de  los  Yankees  se 
hizo  eso. 

Res.  16. — No  tengo  presente  cuanto  tiempo  cuantos  meses  antes ; 
despues  llegaron  los  Yankees.  Entiendo  yo  por  llegada  de  los  Yan- 
kees, cuando  nos  quitaron  los  archivos,  el  gobierno. 

Preg.  17. — Fue  en  el  dia  29  or  en  el  dia  27  que  Vd  escribio  el  de- 
creto  en  el  margen  sobre  la  peticion  del  Genl.  Castro  en  la  copia  del 
cual  ha  dicho  Vd  en  su  testimonio,  que  el  7  parece  haber  sido  cambi- 
ado  a  un  9  ;  ese  cambio  fue  hecho  por  Vd  mismo. 

Resp.  17. — 29  esta  escrito  en  los  dos.  Esto  esta  claro  no  hay  cam- 
bia  ninguno. 

Yo  no  he  dicho  que  parecia  haberse  cambiado. 

Preg.  18. — Estuvo  el  Genl.  Jose*  Castro  en  San  Jose*  el  dia  27,  28, 
6  29  de  Junio  del  ano  1846. 

Res.  18. — No  me  aeuerdo,  en  Junio  o  Julio  se  retir6  el.  Estuvo 
en  Santa  Clara  en  ese  tiempo  Junio  o  Julio.  Mientras  que  el  estava 
alii  ellos  estuvieron  por  aca  y  cuando  el  se  retivo  entraron  los  Yankees 
y  nos  quitaron  los  archivos. 

Preg.  19. — Quien  le  entrego  a  Vd  la  peticion  del  Genl.  Castro  para 
que  Vd  escribiese  en  el  decreto  en  la  margen.     Fue  el  mismo  Genl.  ? 

Res.  19. — Dolores  Pacheco,  el  Alcalde  me  lo  entrego. 

Preg.  20. — El  mismo  Genl.  Castro  trajo  al  Alcalde.  Estuvo  el 
Castro  en  el  juzgado  o  en  San  Jose  en  ese  dia. 

Res.  20.— No  se. 

Preg.  21. — Este  decreto  en  el  margen  fue  escrito  o  registrado  en  el 


672 

libro  del  Alcalde  ?  Cuando  Dolores  Pacheco  hizo  consesiones  de  sola- 
res  en  San  Jose*  en  el  mes  de  Junio  ano  1846  no  hacia  poner  sus  or- 
denes  en  el  libro  ? 

Res.  21. — Ese  decreto  fue  puesto  o  copiado  en  el  libro :  cuando 
Dolores  Pacheco  hacia  esas  concesiones  se  escribian  en  un  libro. 

Preg.  22. — Tome  Yd  la  pluma  y  escriba  las  palabras  seguentes 
ordean, 

"  Pueblo  de  S.  JosS,  G. 

Junio  29  de  1846. 

Como  lo  fide  inclullarse  este  y  archibarse." 

firme  Yd  con  su  rubrica. 

Preg.  23. — Escriba  Yd  ahora  las  palabras  "  Junio  27  "  y  digame 
si  asi  es  como  siempre  firma  y  hace  su  rubrica  Yd. 

Res.  23. — Al  principio  firmaba  de  otra  manera  pero  siempre  des- 
pues  he  firmado  y  hecho  mi  rubrica  de  este  modo. 

Preg.  24. — Sabe  Yd  hacer  la  rubrica  de  Dolores  Pacheco. 

Res.  24.— No. 

Preg.  25. — No  sabe  Yd  que  existe  entre  los  archivos  en  San  Jose*, 
una  declaracion  de  su  hermano  Dolores  Pacheco,  hecha  delante  de 
Santiago  W.  Weekes  Alcalde  que  dice  que  en  el  dia  17  o  18  de  Junio 
del  ano  1846  o  por  alii  en  esos  dias  el  dicho  Dolores  Pacheco  entrego 
la  alcaldia  a  Yalentin  Higuera  y  que  nunca  despues  hizo  ningo  acto 
oficial  ni  se  ocupo"  mas  de  dicho  empleo. 

Res.  25. — Cuando  se  fue  Castro  para  abajo  con  la  gente  dej6  a  Pe- 
dro Chaboya  y  a  Yalentin  Higuera  encargados  de  la  Justicia ;  los  dejo 
de  alcaldes  segundo  y  tercero  siendo  Dolores  Pacheco  alcalde  primero. 
Pocos  dias  despues  de  la  retirada  de  Castro  se  enfermo  Chaboya  y 
Yalentin  Higuera  quedo  de  Alcalde  en  su  lugar,  y  luego  llegaron  los 
Americanos  y  yo  y  el  entregamos  la  casa  y  archivos  al  Gobierno  Ame- 
ricano. 

Filed  Dec'r  29th,  1857. 

JOHN  A.  MONROE, 

Clerk. 
By  J.  Edgar  Grymes, 

Deputy. 


673 


DEPOSITION  OF  T.  F.  GRANT. 

United  States  Distict  Court, 
Northern  District  of  California. 

San  Francisco,  Nov.  20, 185T. 

On  this  day,  before  Cutler  McAllister,  a  Commissioner  of  the  Uni 
ted  States  for  the  Northern  District  of  California,  duly  authorized  to 
administer  oaths,  &c,  &c,  came  T.  F.  Grant,  a  witness  produced  on 
behalf  of  the  United  States  in  Case  No.  420,  being  an  appeal  from  the 
Board  of  Commissioners  to  ascertain  and  settle  the  Private  Land  Claims 
in  the  State  of  California,  in  Case  No.  366  on  the  Docket  of  the  said 
Board  of  Commissioners,  and  was  duly  sworn  and  testified  as  follows  : 

Present  :  The  U.  S.  Attorney,  by  E.  Randolph ;  A.  C.  Peachy, 
for  Claimant. 

Questions  by  U.  S.  Attorney. 

Question  1. — Your  name,  age,  occupation,  and  place  of  residence  ? 

Answer  1. — T.  F.  Grant ;  30  years;  Deputy  County  Recorder  of 
Santa  Clara  County  ;  I  reside  in  San  Jose'. 

Ques.  2. — Take  this  exhibit  "  C  D,"  attached  to  the  deposition  of 
Jose'  Fernandez,  being  the  "  Escritura  de  Compania,"  look  at  it  and 
say  what  manufactures'  marks,  or  water-marks  you  find  on  it. 

(Question  objected  to  on  the  ground  that  the  witness  has  not  shown 
that  he  has  any  knowledge  of  water  or  other  marks,  put  by  manufac- 
turers on  paper,  nor  has  he  said  that  he  has  any  knowledge  or  skill  in 
describing,  tracing,  or  knowing  such  marks.) 

Ans.  2.— I  find  "  G.  J.  0.  R° .  M.  A.  G.  N.  A.  N.  J.  E."  I  can't 
make  out  what  the  rest  of  that  is,  it  looks  more  like  an  "  F  "  than  any 
other  letter  ;  this  is  on  the  first  leaf,  second  page  of  said  document ; 
over  the  letter  "  F  "  there  is  a  small  "  o  7';  under  it  an  "  N,"  at  the 
end  a  little  round  dot,  a  period  I  suppose ;  over  the  period  there  is  a 
sort  of  a  dash. 

Ques.  3. — Look  on  the  second  leaf  of  said  document  and  tell  what 
you  find  there. 

Ans.  3.— I  find  an  "  R  "  with  a  letter  "  S  "on  the  top  of  it. 

Ques.  4. — Now  take  the  document  produced  by  S.  0.  Houghton, 
look  at  the  first  instrument  therein,  being  the  petition  signed  Jose*  Cas- 


674 

tro,  -with  the  marginal  decree  signed  Pacheco,  and  say  what  water- 
marks or  manufacturers'  mark  you  find  on  it. 

Ans.  5. — I  find  a  "  P  "  or  an  "  R.";  I  don't  know  which  it  is,  with 
an  "  S  "  over  it ;  this  is  on  the  first  leaf  of  said  instrument.  On  the 
second  leaf  of  said  instrument  I  find  "  G.  J.  0.  R°.  M.  A.  G.  N.  A. 
N.  J.  E.  E°."  and  a  period  at  the  end. 

Ques.  6. — Take  now  the  second  instrument  in  said  document,  heing 
the  first  petition  signed  Andres  Castillero,  and  say  what  water  or  man- 
ufacture marks  you  find  on  said  instrument. 

Ans.  6. — I  find  something  similar  to  a  coat-of-arms  with  a  pair  of 
scales  on  it,  this  is  on  the  first  leaf  of  said  instrument ;  on  the  second 
leaf  I  find  something,  I  do  not  know  what  to  call  it ;  I  do  not  know 
what  it  is  meant  for ;  I  should  not  call  it  a  flower ;  I  never  saw  a 
flower  like  it ;  in  the  corner  of  the  same  leaf  I  find  something  like  a 
pair  of  scales. 

Ques.  7. — Take  now  the  next  instrument  in  said  document,  being 
the  second  petition  of  Castillero,  and  say  what  water,  or  manufactu- 
rer's mark  you  find  on  said  instrument. 

Ans.  7. — On  the  first  leaf  of  said  instrument  I  find  a  "  P8 ";  also  in 
the  corner  of  the  same  leaf  I  find  an  "  0  ";  on  the  second  leaf  I  find 
"  G.  J.  0.  R°.  M.  A.  G.  N.  A.  N.  J.  E.  F°."  a  period  after  it,  and 
one  on  the  same  line,  not  exactly  under  it. 

Ques.  8. — Look  now  at  the  next  and  last  instrument  in  said  docu- 
ment, being  the  act  of  possession  signed  by  Pico,  and  witnessed  by 
Sunol  and  Noriega,  and  say  what  water  or  manufacture's  mark 
you  find  there. 

Ans.  8. — On  the  first  leaf  I  find  "  Ps  "  and  a  period,  also  an  "  0  " 
in  the  corner  of  the  same  leaf;  an  the  second  leaf  I  find  u  G.  J.  0. 
R°.  M.  A.  G.  N.  A.  N.  J.  E.  F0.,  a  period  at  the  end,  and  another 
period  underneath. 

Cross-Examination. 

Ques.  1. — Look  at  the  sheet  within  which  are  found  the  documents 
concerning  which  you  have  been  testifying,  and  state  what  water-marks 
you  find  on  the  same. 

Ans.  1. — On  the  first  page  I  find  what  I  should  call  a  coat-of-arms  ; 
also  the  letters 

"  G.  B. 
F. 
E.  M.  V.  E  D.  0.  V.  A." 
On  the  last  leaf  of  said  sheet  I  find  "  F.  A.  B."     There  is  a  hole  in 
the  paper,  and  then  comes  what  I  should  call  "  A.  J."  with  "  12  " 
underneath. 

Ques.  2. — Look  at  the  document  marked  "  A.  B."  purporting  to 


675 

be  a  copy  of  the  Houghton  document,  concerning  which  you  have  been 
examined,  and  say  what  water-mark  or  manufacturer's  marks  you  find 
on  said  paper. 

Ans.  2. — On  the  first  leaf  I  find  a  coat-of-arms  with  the  letters 

"  G.  B. 
F. 
E.  M.  V.  E.  D.  0.  V.  A." 
which  appears  to  me  similar  to  the  one  described  in  the  last  answer ; 
on  the  other  leaf  of  the  same  sheet,  I  find 

"F.  A.  B.J.  A.N.  J." 
"  12. " 
I  find  the  second  sheet  of  said  document  to  have  the  same  marks  as 
the  other. 

Ques.  3. — Look  upon  the  Exhibit  "  T.  R."  attached  to  the  deposi- 
tion of  Jose  Fernandez,  and  answer  the  same  question  with  reference 
to  that,  and  state  whether  the  water-mark  thereon  resembles  any  of 
those  you  have  before  described. 

Ans.  3. — I  find  upon  the  said  Exhibit,  being  a  half  leaf  of  paper, 
the  upper  portion  of  a  coat-of-arms,  such  as  I  have  already  described, 
as  being  on  the  first  leaf  of  each  sheet  of  the  Chaboya  copy,  being  Ex- 
hibit "  A.  B."  attached  to  the  deposition  of  Jose*  Fernandez. 

Ques.  4. — Answer  the  same  question  in  reference  to  "  Exhibit  X. 
Y."  attached  to  the  deposition  of  Jose*  Fernandez. 

Ans.  4. — On  the  first  leaf  of  this  sheet  I  find  the  same  marks  as  on 
the  first  leaf  of  each  sheet  of  the  Chaboya  copy,  "  Exhibit  A.  B." 
above  referred  to.  On  the  second  leaf  of  this  Exhibit  I  find  the  same 
letters  and  figures  as  those  on  each  leaf  of  the  second  sheets  of  the 
Chaboya  copy,  "  Exhibit  A.  B."  above  referred  to. 

Above  deposition  taken  subject  to  all  exceptions,  except  as  to  the 
form  of  the  questions. 

T.  F.  GRANT. 

Subscribed  and  sworn  to  before  me,  this  20th  Nov.,  1857. 

cutler  McAllister, 

U.  S.  Commissioner. 
Filed  December  29th,  1857. 

J.  EDGAR  GRYMES,  Deputy. 


676 

DEPOSITION  OF  BENITO  DIAZ. 

United  States  District  Codrt, 
Northern  District  of  California. 

San  Francisco,  Nov.  25, 1857. 

On  this  day,  before  Cutler  McAllister,  a  Commissioner  of  the 
United  States  for  the  Northern  Distrtct  of  California,  duly  authorized 
to  administer  oaths,  &c,  &c,  came  Benito  Diaz,  a  witness  produced 
on  behalf  of  the  United  States,  in  case  No.  420,  being  an  appeal 
from  the  Board  of  Commissions  to  ascertain  and  settle  the  Private 
Land  Claims  in  the  State  of  California,  in  Case  No.  366  on  the 
Docket  of  the  said  Board  of  Commissioners,  and  was  duly  sworn  and 
testified  as  follows — his  evidence  being  interpreted  by  Richard  Tobin, 
a  sworn  interpreter: 

Present  :  U.  S.  Attorney  by  E.  Randolph  ;  A.  C.  Peachy,  for 
Claimant. 

Questions  by  U.  S.  Attorney. 

Question  1. — Your  name,  age,  residence,  what  offices  have  you 
held  in  California,  if  any,  and  when  ? 

Answer  1. — Beneto  Diaz  ;  43  ;  I  reside  in  Monterey  ;  I  was  em- 
ployed in  the  Custom  House,  and  a  lieutenant  in  the  State  Militia. 

Ques.  2. — Please  look  at  the  document  now  shown  you,  being  the 
document  produced  by  S.  0.  Houghton,  and  look  at  the  first  instru- 
ment in  that  document,  being  the  petition  signed  Jose*  Castro,  and 
state  if  you  know  the  handwriting  of  the  body  of  that  instrument, 
and  if  yea,  whose  handwriting  it  is. 

Ans.  2. — The  body  of  that  instrument  is  in  my  handwriting. 

Ques.  3. — At  what  time  was  it  written,  if  you  remember?  If  you 
do  remember,  state  what  circumstances  you  can  now  recall  which  en- 
ables you  to  fix  precisely  the  date. 

(Question  objected  to  on  the  ground  that  it  is  asking  the  witness 
the  contents  of  a  written  instrument.) 

Ans.  3. — I  do  not  remember  the  date. 
Ques.  4. — In  what  year  was  it  written,  or  about  what  year  ? 
Ans.  4. — I  remember  having  written  it,  but  I  do  not  know  in  what 
year. 

Ques.  5. — Endeavor  to  recall  the  circumstances  under  which  it  was 


677 

♦ 

written  ;  on  what  occasion  ;  at  what  place  ;  by  whose  request ;  who 
was  with  you,  &c. 

Ans.  5. — I  remember  that  I  wrote  it  at  Santa  Clara,  at  the  request 
of  Father  Real,  he  told  me  to  make  him  the  copy  of  a  paper,  which 
he  had  in  his  hand  ;  I  think  this  is  what  I  wrote  ;  there  were  two  per- 
sons there  ;  one  was  Juan  Castaiieda,  and  the  other  was  the  porter  of 
the  Mission. 

Ques.  6. — Was  the  Mission  your  residence  ;  if  not,  what  were  you 
doing  there  at  that  time,  and  what  was  Castaiieda  doing  there  ? 

Ans.  6. — We  came,  myself  and  Castaneda,  to  attend  to  some  busi- 
ness with  Father  Real ;  we  came  to  solicit  possession  of  the  orchard 
of  Santa  Clara. 

Ques.  7. — Where  did  you  come  from  when  you  came  to  solicit  pos- 
session of  the  orchard  from  Father  Real  ?     Where  had  you  been  ? 

Ans.  7. — We  came  from  Monterey,  we  had  been  there. 

Ques.  8. — And  to  Monterey,  where  did  you  come  from  ;  where  had 
you  been  ? 

Ans.  8. — We  had  been  at  Monterey  ;  we  had  not  come  from  any 
place. 

Ques.  9. — How  long  had  you  been  staying  at  Monterey,  before  you 
started  to  go  to  Santa  Clara  to  demand  possession  of  that  orchard  ? 

Ans.  9. — I  lived  in  Monterey,  and  at  that  time  Castaneda  was 
settled  there. 

Ques.  10. — Do  you  remember  any  thing  about  Gen.  Castro's  re- 
tiring from  this  upper  part  of  the  country,  to  the  south,  when  the 
Americans  invaded  the  country  ? 

Ans.  10. — I  do  remember. 

Ques.  11. — Do  you  remember  any  of  the  persons  who  retired  with 
him,  and  if  yea,  mention  the  names  of  such  as  you  may  remember. 

Ans.  11. — I  remember  Mr.  Alvarado,  Antonio  Maria  Pico,  and 
Juan  Pinto,  and  the  greater  part  of  the  people. 

Ques.  11. — What  about  you  and  Castaneda,  did  you  go  too,  or  did 
you  remain  behind  ? 

Ans.  12. — When  they  took  Monterey  I  was  there,  and  three  or 
four  days  afterwards  I  joined  the  division  under  Castro,  and  which 
was  on  the  plain  of  Monterey,  and  I  found  Castaneda  there.  He  was 
also  going  with  the  division  under  Castro. 

Ques.  13. — After  joining  Gen.  Castro  on  the  plain  of  Monterey, 
where  did  you  go  next  ? 

Ans.  13. — To  Los  Angeles. 

Ques.  14. — How  long  did  you  remain  in  the  southern  part  of  Cali- 
fornia, before  you  came  back  to  Monterey  ? 

Ans.  14. — A  month  more  or  less. 

Ques.  15. — Was  it  before  the  Americans  took  Los  Angeles  the  first 
time,  or  after  that  event,  that  you  returned  to  Monterey  ? 


678 

Ans,  15. — I  left  the  night  before  they  took  it  the  first  time. 
Ques.  16. — Who  came  with  you? 

Ans.  16. — There  were  several  came,  I  remember  Fernandez,  Cha- 
boya,  Antonio  Maria  Pico,  and  many  others. 
Ques.  17. — Was  Juan  Castaneda  one  ? 

(Question  objected  to  as  leading.) 

Ans.  17.—  No. 

Ques.  18. — About  how  long  afterwards  was  it  before  you  saw  Juan 
Castaneda  in  Monterey  ? 

Ans.  18. — Three  or  four  months  after. 

Ques.  19. — Was  it  before  you  saw  Juan  Castaneda  in  Monterey, 
on  that  occasion,  that  you  and  he  went  to  Santa  Clara  to  solicit  pos- 
session of  the  orchard  from  Father  Real  ?  I  mean  was  it  before  or 
after  Castaneda  returned  from  the  South  ? 

Ans.  19. — It  was  after  Castaneda's  return  from  the  South. 

Ques.  20. — About  how  long  after,  as  well  as  you  can  now  remem- 
ber? 

Ans.  20. — It  was  five  or  six  months  after. 

Ques.  21. — Was  it  on  that  visit  of  yourself  and  Castaneda,  that 
you  wrote  the  paper  of  which  you  have  testified,  or  was  it  on  any 
other  occasion  ? 

(Question  objected  to  as  leading.) 

Ans.  21. — It  was  at  that  time. 

(The  objection  to  the  above  question  was  made  after  witness  had 
given  his  answer  to  the  interpreter.) 

Ques.  22. — Do  you  remember  any  incident  which  occurred  at  that 
time,  fixing  in  your  mind  the  fact  oi  your  writing  that  paper  ? 

Ans.  22. — I  only  remember  that  Father  Ileal  dictated  to  me  from 
a  paper,  and  that  Castaneda  was  there  also. 

Ques.  23. — Look  at  the  paper  again,  look  at  the  signature  to  the 
paper  ;  look  at  the  marginal  order  thereon,  and  say  whether  the  said 
signature,  and  the  said  marginal  order  were  upon  the  paper  at  the 
time  you  wrote  it ;  or  whether  they  were  afterwards  put  on  in  your 
presence,  or  whether  you  know  anything  about  them. 

Ans.  23. — I  know  nothing  about  them  ;  there  was  no  decree,  upon 
it  when  I  wrote  it,  immediately  after  I  finished  writing  it,  Father  Real 
took  it  and  put  away. 

Ques.  24. — Look  at  the  three  other  instruments  in  the  document 
referred  to  contained,  viz.  in  the  S.  0.  Houghton  document,  and  say 


679 

if  you  know  anything  about  the  hand  writing  of  them,  and  if  so  what  ? 
And  say  if  you  know  anything  about  the  writing  of  them,  or  any  one 
of  them,  and  if  yea,  what  ? 

Ans.  24. — The  first  petition  of  Castillero,  I  know  to  be  in  the  hand 
writing  of  Castaneda,  I  no  not  know  the  hand  writing  of  the  other 
two  instruments.  I  know  nothing  about  the  writing  or  preparation  of 
any  of  them. 

Ques.  25. — Did  Father  Real  give  possession  of  the  orchard  to  you 
and  to  Castaneda  ? 

Ans.  25.— No. 

Ques.  26. — Who  is  the  present  holder  of  your  claim  to  that  or- 
chard, under  which  you  sought  to  get  possession  ? 

Ans.  26. — Charley  Clayton  is  the  present  holder  of  that  claim. 

Ques.  27. — When,  a  few  days  after  the  taking  of  Monterey  by  the 
Americans,  you  joined  Gen.  Castro  in  the  plain  of  Monterey,  as  you 
have  testified,  was  that  the  first  time  you  had  joined  him  during  that 
campaign  against  the  Americans  ? 

Ans.  27. — That  was  not  the  first  time. 

Ques.  28. — When  and  where  had  you  been  with  him  before  during 
that  campaign ;  when,  and  at  what  place  had  you  left  him  ? 

Ans.  28. — I  had  been  with  him  before  at  Santa  Clara,  and  at  Con- 
tra Costa ;  I  left  him  at  Santa  Clara,  three  or  four  days  after  we  re- 
turned from  Contra  Costa,  and  I  went  to  Monterey. 

Ques.  29. — Do  you  know  on  what  days  you  were  in  Contra  Costa 
with  Gen.  Castro;  at  what  day  you  got  back  to  Santa  Clara  ? 

Ans.  29. — I  can't  remember. 

Ques.  30. — How  many  days  was  it  before  the  Americans  took  Mon- 
terey, that  you  met  Gen.  Castro  at  Santa  Clara  ? 

Ans.  30 — I  remember  that  I  left  Santa  Clara  on  the  4th  July,  and 
the  Americans  took  Santa  Clara  on  the  7th  July. 

Ques.  31 . — Did  you,  or  did  you  not,  when  you  were  in  Contra 
Costa,  or  when  you  were  in  Santa  Clara,  at  the  time  referred  to  last, 
write  any  paper  relating  to  this  mine,  at  the  request  of  Gen.  Castro, 
or  of  Father  Real,  or  of  any  body  else,  or  at  your  own  suggestion  ? 

Ans.  31. — No,  none. 

Ques.  32. — Is  not  Castaneda  now  dead  ? 

Ans. — Yes,  he  is  dead. 

Examination  adjourned  until  to-morrow,  at  11,  A.  M.,  Nov.  26, 1857. 


680 

San  Francisco,  Nov.  26, 1857. 

Deposition  of  Benito  Diaz,  a  witness  produced  on  behalf  of  the 
United  States,  this  day  continued. 

Present  :  U.  S.  Attorney,  by  E.  Randolph,  Esq. ;  A.  C.  Peachy 
for  Claimant. 

Cross-Examination. 

Ques.  1.  After  you  copied  the  document  shown  you  by  Padre 
Real,  when  did  you  next  see  the  copy  you  made  ? 

Ans.  1.     I  saw  it  here  in  this  room,  about  fifteen  days  ago. 

Ques.  1.  Who  was  with  you  when  you  saw  it ;  did  you  come  here 
to  look  at  it ;  if  yea,  who  brought  you  here  ? 

Ans.  2.  Messrs.  Cambuston  and  Laurencel,  were  with  me  when  I 
saw  it.  I  came  to  see  it  because  Mr.  Laurencel  told  me  to  come 
here  to  see  whether  I  knew  the  handwriting  of  some  papers  that  were 
here. 

Ques.  3.  Were  no  other  persons  with  you  at  that  time,  or  on  that 
occasion  ? 

Ans.  3.  There  were  several  other  persons  there  looking  at  the 
document,  and  amongst  them  this  gentleman. 

(Witness  pointed  to  Mr.  Thompson,  the  Recorder  of  Santa  Clara 
County.) 

Ques.  4.     When  did  you  next  see  the  document  ? 

Ans.  4. — Some  five  or  six  days  ago  I  saw  it  here  in  the  other 
room. 

Ques.  5. — At  whose  instance  did  you  come  to  examine  it  the  second 
time,  and  who  was  present  at  the  second  examination  ? 

Ans.  5. — I  came  at  the  request  of  Mr.  Laurencel  the  second  time  ; 
Mr.  Laurencel  and  these  other  gentlemen  were  present. 

Ques.  6. — When  did  you  next  inspect  that  document,  and  at  whose 
instance  ? 

Ans.  6. — I  did  not  see  it  again  until  yesterday,  when  I  saw  it  here. 

Ques.  7. — Have  you  any  permanent  place  of  residence,  and  what 
do  you  do  for  a  living  ? 

Ans.  7. — I  have  a  permanent  place  of  residence,  and  I  make  a  liv- 
ing by  working. 

Ques.  8. — Where  do  you  reside,  and  what  kind  of  a  work  do  you 
do  for  a  living  ? 

Ans.  8. — I  live  at  Monterey ;  my  house  is  there  ;  I  have  a  part  of 


681 

a  ranch,  and  there  I  have  another  house,  and  on  the  same  rancho  I 
am  cultivating  an  orchard. 

Ques.  9. — What  is  the  name  of  that  rancho,  and  who  owns  the  other 
parts  of  it  ? 

Ans.  9. — It  is  called  "  El  Piogo  ";  my  wife's  brothers  own  the  other 
parts  of  it. 

Ques.  10. — How  long  have  you  been  in  San  Francisco  this  time  ? 

Ans.  10. — About  three  weeks. 

Ques.  11. — What  have  been  your  business  here  ? 

Ans.  11. — I  came  to  attend  to  some  business  with  Mr.  Alvarado. 

Ques.  12. — Who  first  told  you  that  there  was  a  document  used  in  this 
case  in  your  handwriting  ? 

Ans.  12. — Nobody  told  me  ;  I  did  not  know  there  was  until  I  saw  it. 

Ques.  13. — What  was  said  to  you  by  Mr.  Laurencel  about  this  doc- 
ument when  he  requested  you  to  come  and  inspect  it  ?  state  every- 
thing that  was  said  by  him  you  on  that  occasion. 

Ans.  13. — He  came  and  told  me  to  do  him  the  favor  to  come 
and  see  whether  I  knew  the  handwriting,  and  we  came,  Cambuston 
and  I ;  I  recognized  that  of  Castaneda  and  my  own,  but  I  said  that  I 
only  recognized  that  of  Castaneda  ;  three  or  four  days  afterwards  I 
went  to  San  Jos£,  and  returned  here  again,  and  Mr.  Laurencel  sent 
for  me  again  ;  I  think  it  was  Friday,  and  he  asked  me  if  it  was  true 
that  that  was  my  handwriting  ;  and  he  asked  me  several  other  ques- 
tions, and  he  said  it  was  all  right,  and  that  he  was  much  obliged  to 
me,  and  on  Saturday  the  Marshal  took  me  a  subpoena. 

Ques.  14. — Did  Mr.  Laurencel  speak  to  you  in  Spanish,  or  did  he 
converse  with  you  by  means  of  an  interpreter  ? 

Ans.  14. — He  spoke  to  me  in  Spanish. 

Ques.  15. — What  were  the  other  questions  Mr.  Laurencel  asked 
you  on  that  occasion  ? 

Ans.  15. — He  asked  me  when  I  had  written  that  document,  where 
and  in  whose  presence,  and  several  others,  which  I  don't  remember, 
nearly  the  same  that  was  asked  yesterday. 

Ques.  16. — After  your  first  inspection  of  this  document,  and  before 
your  conversation  with  Mr.  Laurencel,  mentioned  in  your  last  answer, 
had  you  ever  conversed  with  any  person  about  that  document  ?  if  yea, 
name  all  the  persons  with  whom  you  have  held  such  conversation,  and 
state  what  you  said  to  them,  and  what  they  said  to  you,  about  it. 

Ans.  16. — I  had  a  conversation  with  Fernandez,  with  Antonio  Maria 
Pico,  with  a  person  named  James  Crane  ;  Fernandez  knew  my  hand- 
writing, and  he  asked  me  if  I  had  really  written  it,  and  I  replied  to 
him,  yes,  that  I  had  written  it.  Antonio  Maria  Pico  and  James  Crane 
were  present  when  Fernandez  put  me  these  questions.  Afterwards* 
Don  Antonio  Maria  Pico  told  me  that  he  would  cause  my  testimony  to. 
51 


682 

be  taken,  and  I  replied  to  him  that  he  should  do  me  the  favor  not  to 
involve  me  in  the  matter,  because  I  intended  to  leave  soon. 

Ques.  17. — On  how  many  occasions  did  you  ask  Padre  Real  for  the 
possession  of  the  orchard  of  Santa  Clara  ? 

Ans.  17. — On  two  occasions. 

Ques.  18.— The  date  of  the  first? 

Ans.  18. — I  do  not  remember  the  date,  but  it  was  before  we  went 
in  person  to  ask  it,  it  was  through  the  medium  of  Don  Antonio  Osio. 

Ques.  19. — State  the  dates  as  well  as  you  can  remember  ;  on  your 
direct  examination  you  appear  to  have  a  very  good  memory  for  dates, 
please  exercise  it  now  a  little. 

Ans.  19. — If  I  remember  I  will  tell  it,  but  after  ten  or  twelve  years 
it  is  difficult  to  remember  the  date  ;  I  remember  that  I  sent  Osio  the 
first  time,  but  I  don't  remember  the  date.  I  don't  remember  the  date 
of  the  second  time,  but  I  now  remember  that  the  date  can  be  ascer- 
tained from  the  newspapers,  because  they  gave  an  account  of  a  diffi- 
culty I  had  with  Father  Real  touching  the  possession  of  the  orchard. 

Ques.  20. — What  newspapers  ? 

Ans.  20. — The  first  newspaper  that  was  established  here,  I  think  ; 
I  think  the  editor  was  that  very  tall  man  they  used  to  call  Simple  or 
Semple. 

Ques.  21. — Was  your  first  application  to  Padre  Real  for  the  pos- 
session of  this  orchard  before,  or  after,  you  went  south  with  General 
Castro  ? 

Ans.  21. — It  was  after  we  came  from  the  south,  because  when  we 
came  from  the  south,  we  brought  the  titles  to  the  orchard  of  Santa 
Clara. 

Ques.  22. — Have  you  now  any  interest  in  the  orchard  of  Santa 
Clara,  under  the  title  of  which  you  have  first  spoken,  or  under  any 
other  ? 

'.(Question  objected  to  as  irrelevant,  even  on  a  cross-examination.) 

Ans.  22. — I  have  no  interest. 

Ques.  23. — Did  you  sell  your  interest  in  said  orchard  derived  from 
the  title  of  which  you  have  spoken  ;  if  yea,  to  whom,  for  what  price, 
and  when? 

(Question  objected  to  as  before.) 

Ans  23. — I  sold  it  to  Charley  Clayton  in  the  year  1849  or  1850, 
but  I  don't  remember  for  how  much. 

Ques.  24. — Try  to  remember  for  how  much. 
Ans.  24.— From  $1,200  to  $1,600. 


683 

Ques.  25. — Where  was  that  title  written  out  and  signed,  and  when  ? 
I  mean  your  title  to  the  orchard  of  Santa  Clara. 

(Question  objected  to,  because  it  is  irrelevant,  inasmuch  as  it  is  the 
Claimant's  title  to  the  Almaden  mine,  which  is  now  on  trial,  and  not 
the  witness'  title  to  the  orchard.) 

Ans.  25. — It  was  written  by  Juan  Castaneda,  and  signed  by  Pio 
Pico  ;  it  was  written  and  signed  at  Los  Angeles  ;  I  don't  know  when. 
Ques.  26. — Do  you  remember  the  date  of  it  ? 

(Question  objected  to  because  the  paper  is  the  best  evidence  of  the 
date.) 

Ans.  26. — In  the  last  days  of  June,  1846. 

Ques.  27. — What  did  you  give  the  Government  for  that  orchard  ? 

(Objected  to  as  immaterial.) 

Ans.  27. — If  I  am  allowed  I  will  make  a  suggestion  ;  I  have  been 
sworn  to  tell  the  truth  in  the  case  of  Andres  Castillero,  but  now  I  see 
I  am  being  examined  in  another  case. 

Ques.  28. — I  repeat  the  question,  please  answer  it. 

Ans.  28. — I  gave  it  nothing. 

Ques.  29.  Was  the  orchard  granted  to  you  alone,  or  with  others, 
and  if  with  others,  whom  ? 

Ans.  29.     It  was  granted  to  me,  Juan  Castaneda  and  Luis  Arenas. 

Ques.  30.     By  the  terms  of  the  grant,  was  it  a  donation,  or  a  sale  ? 

(Question  objected  to  as  before,  and  the  counsel  for  the  United 
States  here  requests  the  Commissioner  to  instruct  the  witness  that  he 
is  under  no  obligations  to  answer  questions  respecting  any  of  his  pri- 
vate affairs  in  no  manner  connected  with  the  claim  of  Castillero  now 
on  trial.) 

(Commissioner  refused  to  give  such  instruction  upon  the  ground 
that  the  questions  have  some  bearing  to  the  answers  of  the  witness  in 
his  examination  in  chief.) 

(Ruling  excepted  to.) 

Ans.  30. — I  think  it  was  a  sale. 

(Objected  to.) 


684 

Ques.  31.     Did  neither  Castaiieda  nor  Arenas,  pay  the  Govern- 
ment anything  for  the  orchard  under  that  grant  ? 
Ans.  31.     I  think  they  did  pay  it,  the  Government. 
Ques.  32.     What  did  they  pay  it  ? 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans.  32.  According  to  what  they  told  me,  they  paid  cattle  and 
seed,  and  a  small  amount  of  money. 

Ques.  33.  How  many  cattle,  how  much  seed,  and  how  much  money 
did  they  pay,  and  when  did  they  pay  it  ? 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans.  33.     I  do  not  know  the  quantity,  nor  when  they  paid  it. 
Ques.  34.     Did  they  obtain  a  receipt  for  the  same  from  the  Gover- 
ner,  or  any  other  official  ? 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans.  34.     Yes,  there  was  a  receipt. 

Ques.  35.  In  whose  handwriting  was  that  receipt,  and  by  whom 
signed  ? 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans.  35.     It  was  signed  by  Pio  Pico,  the  Governor.   I  think  it  was 
in  the  handwriting  of  Castaiieda,  but  I  am  not  sure. 
Ques.  36.  What  was  the  date  of  the  receipt  ? 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans.  36.  June,  1846, 1  think,  about  the  end  of  the  month.  I  am 
not  sure,  because  I  only  saw  the  receipt  once. 

Ques.  37.     How  do  you  know  that  Castaiieda  wrote  that  Grant  ? 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans.  37.     Because  I  saw  it  written. 

Ques.  38.     In  what  house  in  Los  Angeles  was  it  written  ? 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans.  38.     At  the  house  of  Luis  Arenas. 


685 

Ques.  39.  Was  Castaiieda  in  Los  Angeles  in  the  month  of  June, 
1846? 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans.  39.     No,  he  was  not  there. 

Ques.  40.  Was  Pio  Pico  in  Los  Angeles,  in  the  month  of  June, 
1846 1 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans.  40.     I  don't  know,  I  was  not  there  in  June,  1846  ? 
Ques.  41.     Did  you  see  Pio  Pico  sign  that  Grant  ? 

'  (Objected  to.) 

Ans.  41.     No. 

Ques.  42.     In  what  month  did  Castaiieda  write  that  Grant  ? 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans.  42.     In  July,  or  August,  1846. 

Ques.  43.  Is  this  man  Crane,  with  whom  you  had  the  conversa- 
tion mentioned  in  your  16th  answer  on  this  cross-examination,  the  same 
person  to  whom  you  stated  under  oath  when  you  appeared  as  a  wit- 
ness on  behalf  of  the  United  States  before  the  Land  Commission,  in 
the  Claim  of  Redman  &  Clayton,  for  the  Orchard  of  Santa  Clara, 
that  you  had  told  many  lies  ? 

(Question  objected  to  as  incompetent,  because  Counsel  for  the 
Claimant  should  first  exhibit  to  the  witness  the  deposition  or  state- 
ment to  which  he  refers,  before  cross-examining  the  witness  as  to  that 
deposition.  The  Counsel  for  the  United  States  asks  the  Commissioner 
to  require  of  the  Counsel  for  the  Claimant  to  produce  and  exhibit  to 
the  witness  the  deposition  or  statement  to  which  he  refers,  before 
putting  the  question.) 

[The  Counsel  for  the  Claimant  here  states  that  he  will  save  the 
Commissioner  the  trouble  of  ruling  upon  said  request  of  the  U.  S. 
Attorney,  by  asking  an  adjournment  of  this  examination  until  to- 
morrow, when  he  will  produce  said  deposition.] 

Examination  adjourned  until  to-morrow  Nov.  27,1857,  at  11,  A.M. 


686 
San  Francisco,  November  27, 1857, 11  A.  M. 

Cross-Examination  of  Benito  Diaz,  a  witness  produced  on  behalf  oi 
the  United  States  this  day  continued. 

Present  :  The  United  States  Attorney  by  E.  Randolph ;  A.  C. 
Peachy  for  Claimant. 

Ques.  43,  withdrawn. 

Ques.  44. — Did  you  appear  as  a  witness  on  behalf  of  tne  United 
States,  before  the  United  States  Land  Commission,  in  December, 
1854,  in  the  claim  of  J.  W.  Redman  and  others,  for  the  orchard  of 
Santa  Clara,  and  was  your  deposition  taken  in  that  case  ? 

Ans.  44. — Yes. 

Ques.  46. — Look  at  the  13th  question  and  your  answer  thereto,  on 
the  cross-examination,  as  it  appears  written  in  your  deposition  taken 
before  the  Land  Commission  on  the  28th  Dec.  1854,  in  the  said  claim, 
and  filed  in  the  office  of  the  said  Commission,  which  said  question 
and  answer,  are  in  the  following  words  : 

"  13th  Question. — Have  you  had  any  conversation  with  James  C. 
"  Crane,  in  the  City  of  San  Francisco,  on  the  subject  of  the  affidavit 
"  which  you  made  on  the  4th  Dec.  1854,  before  this  Board,  or  about 
"  your  giving  testimouy  in  this  case,  if  yea,  when  did  that  conversa- 
"  tion  occur,  and  what  did  you  say  as  to  money  which  was  to  be  paid 
"  to  you  for  testifying  against  this  claim  ? 

"  Answer. — I  have  had  a  conversation  with  said  Crane  on  the  sub- 
"  ject  of  said  affidavit.  Crane  proposed  to  me  that  he  would  give 
"  testimony  in  this  case,  and  asked  me  how  much  Padre  Nobles  would 
"  pay.  I  told  him  I  did  not  know,  he  could  go  and  see  the  Padre,  and 
"  arrange  it  himself.  Crane  told  me  he  had  not  been  able  to  affect  an 
"  arrangement  with  the  Padre  about  it. 

"  I  and  Crane  have  had  many  conversations  in  which  we  have  both 
"  made  misrepresentations  to  each  other  to  deceive  each  other. 

"  The  conversation  I  had  with  Crane  about  said  affidavit  was  held 
"  at  the  St.  Francis'  Hotel,  in  this  city,  some  three  or  four  days 
"  after  I  made  said  affidavit. 

"  As  to  what  I  said  to  Crane  about  what  money  I  was  to  receive 
"  for  testifying  against  this  claim,  I  have  told  Crane  many  lies." 

Look  also  to  your  answer  to  the  II 5th  question  on  the  cross-exami- 
nation in  the  said  deposition,  which  question  and  snswer  is  in  the  fol- 
lowing words : 


687 

"  15th  Question. — Did  you  ever  mention  to  said  Crane  the  sum  of 
"  $2000,  in  the  conversations  you  say  you  had  with  him,  as  a  sum  to 
"  be  paid  to  you  either  directly  or  contingently,  for  testifying  against 
"this  claim ?" 

"  Answer.— I  have  mentioned  to  him  $1000,  $2000,  $3000,  and 
"  $4000,  at  different  times,  as  sums  which  I  am  to  receive  for  testify- 
"  ing  against  this  claim.  It  was  false,  but  I  told  him  so  to  get  rid  of 
"  him. 

"  Crane  told  me  I  had  done  a  poor  business  by  taking  sides  with 
"  the  Padres,  that  if  I  had  only  taken  sides  with  him,  he  could  pro- 
"  bably  have  got  me  $4000,  or  $5000,  from  the  attorneys." 

And  state  if  said  questions  were  propounded  to  you,  and  whether 
those  answers  were  made  to  said  questions,  and  whether  the  Crane 
who  is  mentioned  in  said  questions  and  answers  is  the  person  of  that 
name  with  whom  as  you  have  stated  in  your  16  th  Answer  of  your 
cross-examination  in  this  deposition,  you  conversed  on  the  subject  of 
this  petition  of  Castro's,  written  by  you  at  the  request  of  Padre 
Real? 

(The  U.  S.  Attorney  admits  that  the  deposition  of  this  witness  re- 
ferred to  in  above  question,  and  shown  to  the  witness,  is  the  same  de- 
position which  is  on  file  among  the  papers  of  the  Land  Commission  in 
the  claim  of  Joshua  W.  Redman,  Chas.  Clayton,  and  the  Heirs  of 
James  M.  Jones,  dec'd,  to  the  Orchard  of  Santa  Clara,  and  that  the 
same  was  produced  on  this  examination  by  a  deputy  from  the  Survey- 
or General's  office,  in  charge  of  the  archives.) 

Ans.  45. — I  am  not  a  lawyer,  and  do  not  know  whether  I  should 
answer  this  question,  but  I  think  it  is  unnecessary  to  answer  this  ques- 
tion, because  the  records  are  public,  and  I  am  here  to  testify  in  ano- 
ther and  different  case. 

Ques.  46. — I  repeat  the  question  and  insist  upon  your  answering 
it? 

(The  U.  S.  Attorney  requests  the  Commissioner  to  instruct  the 
witness  that  his  answer  just  given  is  sufficient,  except  as  to  the  iden- 
tity of  Crane,  and  with  that  exception  he  cannot  be  compelled  law- 
fully to  give  any  other  answer.) 

[Commissioner  refuses  to  give  such  instructions,  and  takes  the  ans- 
wer subject  to  objections.] 

Ans.  46. — With  reference  to  Crane  he  is  the  same  person  of  whom 
have  spoken  in  this  deposition.     (Witness  refuses  to  answer  further 
ihan  as  he  had  already  answered.) 


688 

(Commissioner  rules,  that  the  witness  is  bound  to  answer  the  ques- 
tion fully,  unless  it  will  tend  to  criminate.) 

(The  witness  claims  the  right  to  counsel  and  the  judgment  of  the 
Court,  on  the  ground  that  he  has  already  sufficiently  answered  the 
question.) 

(Examination  on  this  point  suspended  until  reference  is  had  to  the 
Court.) 

Ques.  47. — Where  were  you  when  Padre  Real  showed  you  the  pa- 
per which  he  asked  you  to  copy  ? 

Ans.  47. — Padre  Real  did  not  show  me  any  paper.  Padre  Real  was 
in  his  room,  and  he  dictated  to  me  with  a  paper  in  his  hand,  but  I  did 
not  see  the  paper. 

Ques,  48. — Where  did  that  take  place  ? 

Ans.  48. — At  the  Mission  of  Santa  Clara. 

Ques.  49. — In  what  year  ? 

Ans.  49. — I  have  already  said  several  times  that  I  do  not  remem- 
ber the  year. 

Ques.  50. — Have  you  no  idea  what  year  it  was  in  ? 

Ans.  50. — I  have  an  idea,  but  I  have  no  certainty. 

Ques.  51. — What  is  your  idea  on  the  subject  ? 

Ans.  51.     That  it  was  at  the  close  of  1846,  or  in  the  year  1847. 

Ques.  52. — Who  was  present  when  Padre  Real  asked  you  to  make 
a  copy  of  that  instrument  ? 

Ans.  52. — Juan  Castaneda,  and  a  person  who  was  the  porter  of  the 
Mission. 

Ques.  53. — Who  was  the  porter  of  the  Mission  ;  was  he  Indian,  or 
Mexican  ?     Is  he  living  ? 

Ans.  53. — He  was  a  person  named  Gutierrez ;  I  don't  know 
whether  he  was  a  Mexican,  or  Spaniard  ;  I  don't  know  whether  he  is 
dead  or  alive. 

Ques.  54. — Do  you  know  where  he  is  ? 

Ans.  54. — I  do  not. 

Ques.  55. — In  whose  handwriting  was  the  instrument  which  Padre 
Real  asked  you  to  copy  ? 

Ans.  55. — I  have  already  said  that  I  have  not  seen  it. 

Ques.  56. — How  do  you  know  that  Padre  Real  had  in  his  hands  an 
instrument  in  writing,  if  you  did  not  see  it  ? 

Ans.  56. — Because  I  saw  a  paper  in  his  hands  and  he  dictated  to 
me. 

Ques.  57.  Did  you  ask  the  Padre  if  the  paper  he  had  in  his  hands 
was  signed  by  any  person  ? 

Ans.  57.     No. 


689 

Ques.  58.  Did  you  ask  the  Padre  why  in  December  1846,  or  in 
the  early  part  of  the  year  1847,  he  asked  you  to  copy  a  paper  bearing 
date  the  27th  June,  1846  ? 

(Question  objected  to  because  it  assumes  that  the  witness  has  stated 
that  he  wrote  the  paper  in  question  during  the  latter  part  of  December 
1846,  or  first  of  January  1847,  whereas  the  witness  has  stated  that  he 
had  an  idea  that  he  wrote  it  in  the  latter  part  of  the  year  1846,  or 
sometime  during  the  year  1847,  and  the  circumstances  which  the 
witness  has  stated  whereby  to  ascertain  the  time  show  that  it  must 
have  been  late  in  the  year  1847,  if  not  in  the  year  1848.) 

Ans.  58.  No ;  because  it  was  a  matter  which  did  not  concern  me. 
I  wrote  what  I  was  told  to. 

Ques.  59.  Who  was  present  when  you  demanded  possession  of  the 
orchard  from  Padre  Real  ? 

Ans.  59.     Castaneda,  myself  and  the  Padre. 

Ques.  60.     No  one  else  ? 

Ans.  60.  When  we  spoke  to  him  about  that  matter,  there  was  no 
one  else  present. 

Ques.  61.  What  right  did  you  have  for  demanding  possession  of 
the  orchard  from  Padre  Real,  and  what  reasons  did  you  give  him  for 
demanding  it  ? 

(Question  objected  to  as  irrelevant.) 

Ans.  61.     The  title  which  we  showed  him. 

Ques.  62.  Did  you  show  him  your  title  when  you  made  your  de- 
mand for  the  orchard  ? 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans.  62.  ^  We  showed  him  a  copy,  because  Don  Antonio  Osio  had 
lost  the  original. 

Ques.  63.     Where  is  Don  Antonio  Osio  ? 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans.  63.     In  Lower  California. 

Ques.  64.  Was  the  copy  which  you  showed  him  an  accurate  copy 
of  the  original  ? 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans.  64.    Yes. 


690 

Ques.  65.  Did  you  have  any  difficulty  with  Padre  Real  about  that 
affair  ? 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans.  65.    Yes. 

Ques.  66.  Was  it  before  or  after  you  made  this  copy  that  you  had 
the  difficulty  with  him  ? 

Ans.  66.     After. 

Ques.  67.  When  you  demanded  possession  of  Padre  Real,  did  you 
tell  him  that  although  your  title  bore  date  the  latter  part  of  June  1846, 
that  in  fact  it  was  not  made  until  the  latter  part  of  July,  or  beginning 
of  August  of  that  year,  that  you  saw  Castaneda  with  the  document  of 
title  in  Los  Angeles  in  the  latter  part  of  July  or  the  early  part  of 
August,  1846,  after  his  arrival  there  in  the  expedition  of  Jose  Castro, 
which  was  not  begun  until  the  11th  or  12th  of  July  1846  ? 

(Question  objected  to.) 

Ans.  67.  I  told  him  no  such  thing,  because  I  was  not  aware  that 
it  contained  such  a  defect. 

Ques.  68.     What  defect  do  you  allude  to  ? 

Ans.  68.     Of  being  ante-dated. 

Ques.  69.  Did  you  find  out  ^he  defect  oft  its  being  ante-dated 
before  or  after  you  sold  out  your  interest  in  that  title  ? 

Ans.  69.     Afterwards. 

Ques.  70.  When  you  saw  these  documents  in  company  with  Mr. 
Laurencel,  and  recognized  on  the  first  inspection  of  them  your  own 
handwriting  in  the  instrument  which  you  say  you  copied  for  Padre 
Real,  and  also  the  handwriting  of  Castaneda,  in  Castillero's  first  peti- 
tion, why  did  you  say  that  you  recognized  only  Castaiieda's  handwrit- 
ing ;  why  did  you  not  tell  Mr.  Laurencel  and  the  gentlemen  in  whose 
presence  you  were  inspecting  these  documents,  that  you  also  recog- 
nised your  own  handwriting  ?  Were  you  keeping  yourself  in  reserve, 
so  that  you  might  sell  yourself  to  the  party  who  would  bid  highest, 
and  how  much  has  Mr.  Laurencel  promised  to  pay  you  for  your  tes- 
timony in  this  case  in  behalf  of  the  United  States  ? 

(So  much  of  the  question  objected  to  as  assumes  that  there  were 
bidders  for  the  testimony  of  the  witness.  Counsel  for  the  claimant  in 
this  cause  having  a  right  to  speak  only  for  his  own  clients  ;  and  as  to 
so  much  of  the  question  as  asks  the  witness  how  much  Mr.  Laurencel 
has  promised  to  pay  him.  It  being  proper  first  to  ask  the  witness  if 
Mr.  Laurencel  had  promised  to  pay  him  anything.) 

(Counsel  for  the  claimant  withdraws  the  words  "  and  how  much  has 


691 

Mr.  Laurencel  promised  to  pay  you  for  your  testimony  in  this  case  in 
behalf  of  the  United  States,"  and  substitutes  as  follows :  And  has  Mr. 
Laurencel  promised  directly  or  indirectly  to  pay  you  anything  for  your 
testimony  in  this  case  on  behalf  of  the  United  States ;  if  yea,  how, 
much  ?) 

Ans.  70.  When  we  first  looked  at  the  documents  I  did  not  wish  to 
say  that  it  was  my  handwriting,  because  I  dislike  to  testify,  and  if  it 
had  not  been  that  one  of  the  witnesses  recognised  my  handwriting,  I 
never  would  have  said  that  it  was  mine  ;  with  reference  to  the  insult 
which  is  offered  me,  that  I  was  reserving  myself  for  the  highest  bidder, 
I  do  not  know  his  motive  for  saying  it.  When  I  complained  to  Mr. 
Laurencel  of  the  trap  which  they  had  laid  for  me,  and  that  the  fees 
allowed  by  government  would  be  insufficient  to  pay  my  expenses,  he 
promised  me  that  if  I  would  make  out  my  account,  and  deduct  there- 
from the  amount  received  from  the  government,  he  would  pay  the 
deficit. 

Ques.  71.  Are  you  on  terms  of  friendship  with  James  Crane,  of 
whom  you  have  spoken ;  have  you  seen  much  of  him  of  late  ;  where 
does  he  reside  ;  has  he  been  in  San  Francisco  during  the  last  month  ? 

Ans.  71.  We  have  known  each  other  for  a  long  time  ;  I  see  him 
nearly  every  day ;  his  place  of  residence  is  San  Rafael ;  I  think  he 
has  been  here  in  the  past  month. 

Ques.  72.  When  you  saw  this  document  that  you  copied,  as  you 
say  you  have  an  idea  you  did,  in  the  latter  part  of  the  year  1846,  or 
in  the  year  1847,  I  mean  when  you  first  inspected  it  at  the  instance 
of  Mr.  Laurencel,  seeing  it  signed  by  Jose*  Castro,  seeing  on  it  a  mar- 
ginal decree  dated  29th  June,  1846,  which  marginal  decree  was 
signed  by  Pacheco  with  his  rubric,  and  name,  and  seeing  that  this 
paper  bears  date  June  27,  1846,  did  you  think  it  honest  to  conceal 
your  knowledge  of  your  handwriting  in  this  paper,  and  of  everything 
else  you  knew  about  it,  tending  to  show  that  it  was  fraudulent,  and 
ante-dated,  for  the  purpose  of  avoiding  the  inconvenience  of  being 
made  a  witness  on  behalf  of  the  United  States  in  this  case  ? 

Ans.  72. — The  first  time  I  looked  at  it  I  did  not  see  the  date ;  it 
was  the  second  time  I  saw  the  date. 

Ques.  73. — How  many  days  intervened  between  your  first  and  se- 
cond inspection  of  this  document  ? 

Ans.  73. — About  fifteen  days,  more  or  less. 

Ques.  74. — Whom  did  you  first  tell  that  this  document  was  ante- 
dated ? 

Ans.  74. — I  have  told  no  one  that  it  was  ante-dated. 

Ques.  75. — Whom  did  you  first  tell  that  this  document  was  written 
by  you,  sometime  after  it  purports  on  its  face  to  have  been  made  ? 
.  Ans.  75. — I  have  said  no  such  thing  to  any  one. 


692 

Ques.  76. — On  your  first  inspection  of  this  document  did  you  read  it  ? 

Ans.  76.— No. 

Ques.  77. — Did  you  see  the  whole  document  at  that  time  ;  did  you 
see  the  signature  to  it  ? 

Ans.  77 — No  ;  as  soon  as  I  recognized  my  handwriting,  I  retired 
to  avoid  being  questioned. 

Ques.  78. — Did  you  not  turn  over  the  leaf,  or  were  you  satisfied  at 
your  glance  at  the  first  page  ? 

Ans.  78. — I  did  not ;  as  soon  as  I  saw  my  handwriting  I  retired. 

Ques.  79. — You  have  said  you  came  to  inspect  this  document  with 
Mr.  Laurencel  on  that  occasion,  why  did  you  not  make  the  inspection ; 
why  did  you  not  examine  the  document  so  far  as  to  learn  its  contents ; 
why  did  you  not  look  at  the  signature  and  the  marginal  decree,  and 
the  signature  to  the  same,  and  why  did  you  not  note  the  date  if  you 
took  the  trouble  to  come  all  the  way  here  to  inspect  that  paper  ;  is  it 
not  somewhat  singular  you  should  have  been  content  with  a  glance  at 
the  first  page  ;  did  no  one  ask  you  to  examine  it  more  minutely  ? 

(So  much  of  the  above  question  as  assumed  that  the  witness  came 
from  a  distance,  that  is  to  say,  from  his  hotel  or  some  place  without  the 
building,  whereas  he  has  testified  that  he  was  in  the  building  in  com- 
pany with  Mr.  Cambuston  on  other  business,  objected  to.) 

Ans.  79. — I  did  not  come  here  expressly  to  examine  the  paper ;  near 
Mr.  Delia  Torre's  room  Mr.  Laurencel  invited  us,  myself  and  Cam- 
buston, to  see  if  we  knew  the  handwriting  of  a  document,  and  the  first 
he  showed  us  was  Castaneda's  ;  ;  they  afterwards  turned  to  the  first 
to  see  if  we  knew  it ;  then  they  all  remained  there,  and  I  as  soon  as  I 
saw  my  handwriting  went  away  ;  I  did  not  wish  them  to  put  me  any 
more  questions  ;  no  one  told  me  to  examine  it  more  minutely. 

Ques.  80. — Did  not  the  gentleman  at  whose  instance  you  went  into 
the  room  to  examine  the  handwriting,  as  you  have  stated,  ask  you  in 
whose  handwriting  you  believed  those  documents  to  be  ? 

Ans.  80. — He  just  showed  me  Castaiieda's,  and  I  did  not  give  time 
for  anything  further. 

Examination  adjourned  until  Monday,  Nov.  30, 1857,  at  11  A.  M. 


San  Francisco,  Nov.  30,  1857. 
Examination  of  Benito  Diaz,  a  witness  produced  on  behalf  of  the 
United  States,  this  day  continued. 

Present  :  The  United  States  Attorney,  by  E.  Randolph ;  A.  C. 
Peachy,  for  Claimant. 


693 

The  parties  and  the  witness  having  appeared  before  the  Court ;  and 
the  Court,  after  hearing  argument  upon  the  point,  having  decided  the 
ruling  of  the  Commissioner  upon  question  45  to  be  correct,  and  that 
the  witness  must  fully  answer  that  question,  it  is  put  to  the  witness  by 
the  Attorney  for  the  claimant,  as  follows  : 

Ques.  81. — I  repeart  question  45,  please  answer  it  fully  ? 

(The  witness  before  answering  this  question  insists  upon  seeing  his 
answer  to  question  16  of  his  cross-examination,  referred  to  in  question 
45  ;  his  answer  is  read  to  him.) 

Ans.  81. — In  relation  to  the  said  questions  and  answers,  I  think 
they  are  the  questions  which  were  put  to  me,  and  the  answers  which 
I  gave,  unless  it  be  a  mistake  or  misinterpretation,  because  I  cannot 
remember  them  exactly  after  so  long  a  time ;  James  Crane  is  the  same 
person  to  whom  I  referred  in  my  said  answer,  No.  16. 

Ques.  82. — Was  the  deposition  in  which  you  gave  those  answers  to 
those  questions  made  under  oath  ? 

Ans.  82.— It  was. 

Ques.  83. — Have  you  any  reason  from  your  present  recollection  or 
remembrance  of  the  matter  to  which  your  answers  to  the  said  ques- 
tions related,  to  doubt  that  your  answers  to  the  same  as  given  by  you 
on  the  taking  of  the  said  deposition  are  correctly  set  forth  as  they  are 
written  in  the  45th  question  ? 

Ans.  83. — That  deposition  may  be  correct,  but  I  do  not  exactly  re- 
member what  my  answers  then  were. 

Ques.  84.  You  state  in  your  80th  answer  on  your  cross-examina- 
tion that  Mr.  Laurencel  first  showed  you  the  Houghton  document,  and 
showed  you  Castaneda's  handwriting  in  the  said  document,  and  that 
you  did  not  give  him  time  for  any  thing  further  ;  did  he  not  afterwards 
seek  you  and  enquire  if  the  Castro  petition  was  in  your  handwriting  ? 

Ans.  84.— No. 

Ques.  85. — Did  Mr.  Laurencel  have  any  conversation  with  you  on 
the  subject  of  those  papers  before  you  went  to  San  Jose',  as  you  stated 
you  did  ? 

Ans.  85.— No. 

Ques.  86. — Did  any  person  converse  with  you  about  those  papers 
after  you  first  saw  them,  and  before  you  went  to  San  Jose*  ;  if  yea, 
who? 

Ans.  86. — I  had  a  conversation  with  Fernandez  and  Antonio  Maria 
Pico. 

Ques.  87. — Did  you  not  have  a  conversation  with  Mr.  Crane  ? 

Ans.  87. — I  think  not,  because  he  was  not  here  in  those  days. 

Ques.  88. — You  say  during  that  interval  you  had  no  conversation 
whatever  with  Mr.  Laurencel  upon  that  subject ;  did  you  have  no  con- 


694 

versation  with  any  one  sent  to  you  by  Mr.  Laurencel,  or  whom  you 
suspected  to  have  been  sent  by  him  to  you  about  that  matter  ? 

Ans.  88. — No.  During  that  interval  I  had  no  conversation  with 
anybody  sent  to  me  by  Mr.  Laurencel,  nor  with  Mr.  Laurencel  about  it. 

Ques.  89. — During  your  visit  to  San  Jose*,  did  you  meet  with  James 
Alexander  Forbes  ? 

Ans.  89.— No. 

Ques.  90. — I  mean  did  you  see  Mr.  Forbes  in  the  interval  between 
your  departure  from  and  return  to  San  Francisco,  on  the  occasion  of 
that  visit  ?  and  not  simply  whether  you  saw  him  in  San  Jose\ 

Ans.  90. — I  did  not  see  him  from  the  time  I  left  San  Francisco  un- 
til I  returned. 

Ques.  91. — During  that  interval  did  you  converse  with  any  person 
upon  the  subject  of  these  papers,  or  the  matters  to  which  they  relate  ! 

Ans.  91.— Yes. 

Ques.  92. — With  whom  ;  and  state  particularly  your  conversation. 

Ans.  92. — Yes.  I  conversed  with  Fernandez,  who  was  on  board 
of  the  steamer  going  down  to  San  Josd  ;  I  do  not  remember  of  con- 
versing with  any  body  else. 

Ques.  93. — On  your  return  to  San  Francisco,  with  whom  did  you 
first  converse  on  the  subject  of  those  documents,  or  the  matter  to  which 
they  relate  ? 

Ans.  93. — Mr.  Laurencel  was  the  first  person  with  whom  I  spoke. 

Ques.  94. — How  many  days  elapsed  between  your  first  inspection 
of  these  documents  and  your  return  from  San  Jose'  ? 

Ans.  94. — Eight  or  ten  days,  more  or  less. 

Ques.  95.  Did  you  seek  Mr.  Laurencel,  or  did  Mr.  Laurencel  seek 
you,  for  the  conversation  you  had  with  him  on  your  return  from  San 
Jos6? 

Ans.  95. — We  met  on  Montgomery  street. 

Ques.  96. — Did  you  meet  by  appointment? 

Ans.  96.— No. 

Ques.  97. — Between  the  times  of  your  first  inspecting  this  doc: 
ument,  and  your  meeting  Mr.  Laurencel  on  Montgomery  street, 
as  stated  in  your  answer  before  the  last,  had  you  received  from 
Mr.  Laurencel,  or  from  any  other  person,  any  written  communica- 
tion upon  the  subject  of  this  document,  or  upon  the  matter  to 
which  it  relates  ? 

Ans.  97. — No,  I  have  not  received  any  communication. 

Ques.  98. — What  did  Mr.  Laurencel  say  to  you  when  you  met 
him  on  Montgomery  street  ? 

Ans.  98. — It  was  then  he  invited  me  to  come  and  see  the  papers 
on  the  next  day. 

Ques.  99. — Was  that  all  he  said  to  you  on  that  occasion  ? 

Ans.  99. — After  having  saluted  each  other,  that  was  all  we 
said. 


695 

Ques.  100. — Are  you  sure  you  said  nothing  more  to  him  on  that 
occasion,  or  he  to  you  ? 

Ans.  100. — Yes,  I  am  sure. 

Ques.  101. — With  whom  did  you  have  the  next  conversation  on 
that  subject  ? 

Ans.  101. — After  that  conversation  I  do  not  remember  to  have 
conversed  with  any  body  about  that  matter. 

Ques.  102. — You  have  stated  that  Mr.  Laurencel  met  you  in  the 
Hall  of  this  Building,  and  invited  you  into  this  room  to  inspect 
the  papers  in  the  Houghton  Document,  that  on  that  inspection  you 
recognized  an  instrument  in  that  Document  to  be  in  the  hand- 
writing of  Juan  Castaneda,  that  you  also  recognized  the  Castro 
petition  to  be  in  your  own  hand-writing,  that  you  stated  to  Mr. 
Laurencel  that  you  recognized  only  Castaneda's  hand-writing,  and 
left  him  hurriedly  so  as  to  give  him  no  time  to  enquire  in  whose 
hand-writing  was  the  Castro  petition,  that  you  held  no  conversa- 
tion or  communication  with  Mr  Laurencel  or  any  agent  of  his  di- 
rectly or  indirectly  on  the  subject  of  those  documents,  or  on  the 
matters  to  which  they  relate,  until  you  met  on  Montgomery  street 
as  you  have  stated.     Is  this  not  so  ? 

Ans.  102.— Yes. 

Ques.  103. — You  have  stated  that  after  your  conversation  with 
Mr.  Laurencel  on  Montgomery  street  you,  do  not  remember  to  have 
had  any  farther  conversation  writh  any  person  whatever  on  the  sub- 
ject of  these  documents,  or  the  matters  to  which  they  relate.  Is  it 
not  so  ? 

Ans.  103.-~.Yes. 

Ques.  104. — You  have  said  that  your  conversation  with  Mr. 
Laurencel  on  Montgomery  street  was  nothing  more  than  a  saluta- 
tion, and  an  invitation  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Laurencel  to  you  to  in- 
spect these  documents  the  next  day.  What  answer  did  you  give 
Mr.  Laurencel  ? 

Ans.  104. — That  I  would  come  to  see  them. 

Ques.  105. — Did  you,  and  when  ? 

Ans.  105. — I  came  the  next  day. 

Ques.  106. — Where  did  you  come  from,  and  with  whem  ? 

Ans.  106. — I  came  from  the  California  Hotel ;  I  think  I  came 
in  company  with  Crane. 

Ques.  107.— What  Crane? 

Ans.  107. — James  Crane. 

Ques.  108. — Did  Crane  accompany  you  to  the  room  next  to  this, 
and  did  he  too  inspect  those  documents  ? 

Ans.  108. — He  did  not  come  to  the  room,  nor  did  he  examine 
the  documents. 

Ques.  109. — Where  did  you  leave  Crane  when  you  came  in  the 
room  to  inspect  the  document  ?     Answer  particularly. 

Ans.  109. — I  do  not  remember  whether  I  left  him  at  the  door 


696 

of  this  building  below,  or  at  the  corner,  at  the  corner  of  the 
street. 

Ques.  110. — How  far  is  the  corner  of  the  street  from  the  en- 
trance to'the  building  ? 

Ans.  110. — It  may  be  about  30  or  40  varas. 
Ques.  111.— Well,  you  came  in  to  examine  the  papers.     State 
everything  that  was  said,  and  done,  on  the  occasion  of  that  ex- 
amination. 

Ans.  111. — I  have  already  answered  that. 
'  Ques.  112. — I  am  not  satisfied  with  the  answer.     I  repeat  the 
question;  answer  it. 

Ans.  112. — I  came  in,  and  Messrs.  Randolph  and  Laurencel  and 
I  think  the  gentleman  who  brought  the  papers  from  San  Jose, 
were  present.  Mr.  Randolph  asked  the  latter  gentleman  for  the 
papers,  and  he  gave  them  to  Mr.  Laurencel,  and  then  he  showed 
them  to  me  one  by  one,  and  he  asked  me  if  that  really  wa3  my 
hand-writing,  and  after  asking  me  several  questions  he  went  on 
to  show  me  the  document  written  by  Castaneda,  and  another  pe- 
tition which  is  there  made  by  Castillero,  and  he  asked  me  if  I 
knew  the  hand-writing  and  signature  of  Castillero,  and  after- 
wards if  I  knew  that  of  the  document  of  posession.  I  answered 
the  questions  which  he  put  to  me,  and  when  I  saw  he  asked  noth- 
ing further  I  prepared  to  leave.     This  was  all  that  occurred. 

Ques.  113. — You  say  that  after  asking  you  if  a  certain  paper 
was  really  in  your  hand-writing,  Laurencel  asked  you  various 
other  questions;  what  answer  did  you  give  to  the  question  whether 
that  document  was  in  your  hand-writing,  and  what  were  the  vari- 
ous other  questions  asked  you  by  Mr.  Laurencel  ? 

Ans.  113. — I  answered  him  that  it  was  really  my  hand-writing, 
He  asked  me  when  I  wrote  it,  where,  and  who  were  present,  and 
several  other  questions  which  I  do  not  remember. 

Ques.  114. — Where  did  you  go  after  you  left  the  room  ? 
Ans.  114. — I  think  I  went  to  take  some  coffee  in  Clay  street ;  I 
went  alone. 

Ques.  115. — Did  not  Crane  wait  for  you  ! 
Ans.  115.— No. 

Ques.  116. — When  did  you  next  see  Crane? 
Ans.  116. — The  night  of  the  following  day. 
Ques.  117. — Are  you  sure  you  had  not  seen  him  in  the  mean- 
time ? 

Ans.  117. — I  am,  because  I  was  looking  for  him  to  have  him 
translate  the  Subpoena  for  me. 

Ques.  118. — When  you  and  Crane  were  coming  together  to  this 
building  on  your  last  visit  of  inspection,  did  you  have  any  con- 
versation with  him  about  the  object  of  your  visit  ? 

Ans.  118.  I  told  him  I  was  coming  to  see  the  papers;  that  was 
all  the  conversation  1  had  with  him. 


697 

Ques.  119. — Did  you  tell  him  what  papers  you  were  coming  to 
see? 

Ans.  119.— Yes. 

Ques.  120.— What  did  he  say  ? 

Ans.  120. — He  asked  me  whether  I  was  coming  to  see  the  same 
which  I  had  seen  first. 

Ques.  121.— What  did  you  tell  him  ? 

Ans.  121. — That  I  was  coming  to  see  the  same  papers. 

Ques.  122. — Did  Crane  ever  ask  you  any  questions  about  those 
papers  before  or  after  that  time  ? 

Ans.  ]  22. — When  he  heard  the  conversation  which  I  had  with 
Fernandez,  he  asked  me  if  it  was  really  my  hand-writing,  and  I 
replied  to  him  that  it  appeared  to  be. 

Ques.  123. — Did  you  never  have  any  other  conversation  with 
Crane  after  that  ? 

Ans.  123. — Touching  the  papers  I  had  none. 

Ques.  124. — Did  you  and  Crane  ever  have  any  conversation 
touching  Mr.  Laurencel  ? 

(Objected  to  as  irrelevant.) 

Ans.  124. — We  have  had  several. 

Ques.  125. — Did  you  have  them  about  the  time  that  you  first  ex- 
amined these  documents  or  at  any  time  afterwards  ? 

Ans.  125. — After  having  received  the  Subpoena  we  have  con- 
versed considerably  about  him  ;  never  before. 

Ques.  126. — Did  Crane  ever  tell  you  that  he  had  conversed 
with  Laurencell  about  these"papers,  or  on  this  subject  ? 

(Question  objected  to  as  irrelevant  and  hearsay.) 

Ans.  126.— No. 

Ques.  127. — Did  this  man  Crane  ever  give  his  deposition  in  the 
claim  of  Redman,   Clayton  and  others  for  the  Orchard  of  Santa 
Clara,  before  the  United  States  Land  Commission  ? 
Ans.  127. — I  do  not  know. 

Examination  adjourned  until  Dec.  1.  at  11  A.  M. 

San  Francisco,  Dec.  1, 1857. 

Examination  of  Benito  Diaz,  a  witness  produced  on  behalf  of 
the  United  States,  this  day  continued  until  to-morrow  Dec.  2, 1857, 
at  11  A.  M. 

52 


698 

San  Francisco,  Dec.  2. 1857. 

Examination  of  Benito  Diaz,  a  witness  produced  on  behalf  of 
the  United  States,  this  day  continued* 

Present. — The  United  States  Attorney  by  E.  Randolph;  A.  C. 
Peachy  for  Claimant. 

Ques.  128. — Do  you  remember  ever  to  have  sworn  in  any  suit 
that  you  would  not  believe  James  Crane  on  oath  ? 

Ans.  128. — I  remember  to  have  sworn  that  I  would  not  believe 
him  in  the  testimony  he  gave  in  that  matter,  or  something  of  that 
kind. 

Ques.  129. — Where  were  you  in  the  month  of  May  1846  ?  name 
all  the  places. 

Ans.  129. — I  cannot  tell  exactly  where  I  was. 

Ques.  130. — Where  were  you  in  the  month  of  June  1846  ?  name 
all  the  places. 

Ans.  130. — Here  in  San  Francisco,  at  Santa  Clara  and  Contra 
Costa. 

Ques.  131. — Where  did  Gen.  Castro  have  his  head  quarters  in 
the  month  of  June  1846  ? 

Ans.  131. — In  Santa  Clara. 

Ques.  132. — On  your  return  from  Los  Angeles  to  Monterey  how 
many  days  did  it  take  you  to  make  the  journey  ? 

Ans.  132. — I  cannot  remember,  but  I  think  I  was  some  ten  or 
twelve  days. 

Ques.  133. — How  many  days  did  it  take  you  to  make  the  jour- 
ney from  the  plains  of  Monterey  to  Los  Angelos  on  the  Castro 
Expedition  ? 

Ans.  133. — I  think  we  were  ten  or  twelve  days  also. 

Ques.  134. — How  many  days  did  you  remain  in  Los  Angeles  ? 

Ans.  134. — I  do  not  remember,  but  I  know  that  it  was  the  night 
before  they  raised  the  American  Flag  ;  that  was  when  it  was 
taken  by  Commodore  Stockton  the  first  time. 

Ques.  135. — Who  came  up  with  you  from  Los  Angeles  ? 

Ans.  135. — Several  ;  I  remember  Jose  Fernandez  ;  a  person 
named  Chabolla,  (not  Pedro)  :  Antonio  Maria  Pico  ;  (Castaneda 
did  not  come) ;  Bernardino  Soto  ;  Lazaro  Soto  ;  I  do  not  remem- 
ber any  more,  tho'  there  were  more. 

Ques.  136. — How  long  after  your  return  to  Monterey  was  it, 
before  Juan  Castaneda  returned  ? 

Ans.  136. — Three  or  four  months  1  think,  I  am  not  sure. 

Ques.  137. — You  say  the  papers  noticed  a  controversy  you  had 
with  Padre  Real  about  this  orchard.  Do  you  remember  what  the 
papers  said  about  it  ?  but  first,  state  if  you  can,  the  nature  of  the 
controversy. 


699 

Ans.  137. — It  was  about   a  letter  which  I   wrote  to   Father 
Real ;  I  do  not  remember  what  the  papers  said. 

Ques.  138. — Did  Padre  Real  reply  to  that  letter  1 

Ans.  138.— I  think  he  did. 

Ques.  139. — Where  was  your  letter  to  Padre  Real  written  ? 

Ans.  139. — In  Monterey. 

Ques.  140. — Was  that  letter  written  before  or  after  you  wrote 
the  Castro  petition  ? 

Ans.  140. — I  think  it  was  written  after  ;  I  cannot  remember  how 
long  after  ;  I  think  it  was  a  short  time  after. 

Ques.  141. — Was  it  as  much  as  a  month  after  ? 

Ans.  141. — I  cannot  recollect. 

Ques.  142. — How  long  after  you  returned  from  Santa  Clara  to 
Monterey  was  it  that  you  addressed  the  letter  to  Padre  Real  ? 

Ans.  142. — I  cannot  recollect. 

Ques.  143. — Your  title  to  the  orchard  bears  date  the  30th  day 
of  June  1846  ;  why  did  you  allow  so  much  time  to  elapse  between 
the  date  of  your  title  and  your  application  for  the  possessien  of 
this  orchard  ? 

Ans.  143. — Because  when  we  returned  from  Los  Angeles  I  was 
as  a  prisoner  in  Monterey  ;  I  could  not  leave  there  ;  also  because 
I  had  not  the  titles  ;  Castaiieda  had  them. 

Ques.  144. — How  long  after  you  received  your  titles  from  Castaii- 
eda was  it  that  you  made  the  demand  for  possession  which  resulted 
in  the  difficulty  of  which  you  have  spoken  ? 

Ans.  144. — Shortly  after  Castaueda  arrived,  and  when  we  heard 
one  day  that  Don  Antonio  Osio  was  coming  to  Santa  Clara,  we  sent 
the  title  by  him  that  he  might  solicit  possession  in  our  name,  the  Padre 
replied  to  us  when  Osio  returned  after  some  time,  that  he  could  not 
give  us  possession,  because  he  alleged  that  he  held  a  title  of  the  In- 
dians, and  Don  Antonio  Osio  said  to  us  that  he  had  lost  our  title,  and 
a  little  while  after  this  we  learned  that  Father  Real  had  given  posses- 
sion to  Osio  of  the  Garden,  under  a  title  as  we  learned  afterwards 
made  by  Father  Real,  upon  one  of  the  blank  sheets  which  Gen.  Castro 
had  left  with  him  signed  ;  this  was  the  origin  of  our  quarrel.  Some- 
time after  we  sent  the  title  by  Osio,  it  was  when  I  had  the  difficulty 
with  the  Padre  of  which  the  papers  spoke.  I  cannot  remember  how 
long  after  it  was. 

Ques.  145. — How  long  after  you  entrusted  Osio  with  this  commission 
did  you  learn  that  Padre  Real  had  put  Osio  in  possession  of  the  orchard 
under  the  title  you  have  referred  to  ? 

Ans.  145. — I  do  not  recollect,  but  my  reply  in  the  newspaper  must 
mention  something  about  that. 

Ques.  146. — Was  it  before  or  after  your  visit  to  Santa  Clara  in 
person  to  make  the  demand  which  resulted  in  the  correspondence 
which  was  published  in  the  papers  as  you  have  stated  ? 
Ans.  146. — It  was  after  this  visit. 


700 

Ques.  147. — Look  at  the  document  shown  you,  purporting  to  be  a 
grant  from  Pio  Pico  to  Benito  Diaz  of  the  piece  of  land  known  under 
the  name  of  "  Punta  de  Lobos,"  situated  in  the  port  of  San  Francisco, 
which  paper  is  brought  from  the  archives  of  the  Surveyor  General  of 
the  State  of  California  by  a  deputy  from  said  office,  being  apart  of  the 
archives  of  the  United  States  Land  Commission  existing  in  said  office, 
and  endorsed  "  No.  515.  Joseph  C.  Palmer,  et  al,  Punta  de  Lobos, 
"  Doc.  H.  I.  T.  No.  1,  annexed  to  Dep.  of  Benito  Diaz,  taken  before 
"  Com.  Harry  I.  Thornton.  Filed  in  office  April  2d,  1853,  Geo. 
«  Fisher,  Sec'y."  "  A  No.  1  G.  T.  B.  attached  to  deposition  of  Pio 
"  Pico,  July  5th,  1854,  taken  before  Com.  G.  Thompson  Burrill,', 
and  state  if  you  know  in  whose  handwriting  is  the  said  document ;  if 
you  know  the  signatures  to  the  same,  and  if  said  signatures  are  genuine  ? 

(Question  objected  to  as  immaterial,  the  genuineness  or  falsity  of 
that  grant  being  irrelevant  in  this  case.) 

Ans.  147. — The  handwriting  is  my  own,  and  as  far  as  I  know  the 
signatures  are  genuine. 

Ques.  148.  Is  this  a  genuine  document,  and  was  it  made  at  the 
time  it  purports  to  have  been  made  ? 

(Question  objected  to  as  irrelevant  to  this  cause,  and  because  the 
grant  referred  to  has  been  tried  before  the  District  Court  for  this  dis- 
trict, who  now  hold  the  same  under  consideration.) 

Ans.  148.     I  have  already  given  my  testimony  about  that. 

Ques.  149.  In  that  document  I  find  the  following  words :  "  Dado 
"  en  la  ciudad  de  Los  Angeles  a  veinte  y  cinco  de  Junio  de  mil  ocho 
"  cientos  cuarenta  y  seis  en  este  papel  comun  por  falta  del  sellado.', 
Are  not  these  words  in  your  handwriting  ?  And  were  they  not  writ- 
ten by  you  at  the  time  you  wrote  the  other  part  of  the  body  of  the 
instrument  ? 

(Question  objected  to  because  it  seeks  to  impeach  the  witness  by  a 
proof  of  a  particular  transaction. 

Ans.  149.     Yes. 

Ques.  150.  You  have  testified  in  this  deposition  frequently  in 
answer  to  questions  which  have  been  propounded  to  you,  that  in  the 
month  of  June  1846,  you  were  in  Santa  Clara  and  Contra  Costa,  and 
not  at  Los  Angeles.  How  can  that  be,  seeing  that  the  words  quoted 
from  your  grant  in  the  preceding  question  purport  to  have  been  writ- 
ten in  the  city  of  Los  Angeles  on  the  25th  day  of  June,  1846  ? 

(Question  objected  to  as  to  the  preceding  question.) 


701 

Ans.  150.  I  have  already  said  in  other  depositions  why  that  docu- 
ment was  dated  at  Los  Angeles,  although  I  had  written  it  in  San 
Francisco. 

Ques.  151.     Did  you  write  that  document  in  San  Francisco  ? 

(Question  objected  to  as  before.) 

Ans.  151.     Yes. 

Ques.  152.     When  did  you  write  it  ? 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans.  152.     I  do  not  remember. 

Ques.  153.  It  purports  to  have  been  written  on  the  25th  day  of 
June,  1846,  does  not  the  document  tell  the  truth  in  that  particular  ? 

(Objected  to.) 

(Before  the  answer  of  the  witness  is  interpreted  from  Spanish  into 
English,  the  counsel  for  claimant  requests  that  so  much  of  the  answer 
as  refers  to  depositions  made  by  the  witness  in  other  cases  for  an 
answer  to  this  question  be  not  written  down.  Answer  written  down 
subject  to  exceptions  by  counsel  for  claimant.) 

Ans.  153.  I  do  not  know  if  it  does  tell  the  truth  ;  according  to  the 
testimony  which  I  have  already  given  in  the  case  of  that  title,  I  think 
it  tells  the  truth. 

Ques.  154.  Was  this  title  written  by  you  at  Los  Angeles  on  the 
25th  day  of  June,  1846? 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans.  154.     No  sir. 

Ques.  155.     Where  was  it  written  and  when  ? 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans.  155.  It  was  written  in  San  Francisco  as  I  have  already  said, 
in  the  month  of  June,  1846.  I  do  not  remember  on  what  day  of  the 
month  it  was  written. 

Ques.  156.  The  document  is  in  your  own  handwriting,  and  is  before 
you,  yon  have  inspected  it,  you  find  the  date  written  out  in  full,  and 
yet  you  say  you  cannot  remember  the  day  on  which  it  was  written ; 
have  you  any  reason  to  suppose  that  it  was  written  on  a  different  day 
from  that  which  is  its  date  ? 


702 
(Objected  to.) 

(The  counsel  for  claimant  asks  the  Commissioner  to  instruct  the 
witness  that  he  must  not  answer  these  questions  by  referring  to  any 
thing  he  has  said  in  a  former  deposition  on  this  subject,  as  an  answer.) 

(United  States  Attorney  object^  to  the  Commissioner  giving  such 
instruction,  or  prescribing  in  any  manner  how  the  witness  shall  answer.) 

(The  Commissioner  instructs  the  witness  as  requested,  subject  to 
the  exception  of  the  U.  S.  Attorney.) 

Ans.  156. — It  was  written  some  days  before  the  day  it  bears  date. 

Ques  157. — I  have  asked  you  before  if  the  document  tells  the  truth 
with  regard  to  its  date,  you  have  answered  as  follows :  "  I  do  not  know 
if  it  does  tell  the  truth,  according  to  the  testimony  which  I  have  al- 
ready given  in  the  case  of  that  title  I  think  it  does  tell  the  truth  ;" 
how  do  you  reconcile  that  answer  with  what  you  have  stated  in  your 
answer  156  ? 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans.  157. — Because  I  wrote  that  title  five  or  six  days  before  the 
day  on  which  it  bears  date,  and  I  sent  it  to  Los  Angeles,  and  I  do  not 
know  whether  they  signed  it  exactly  on  the  25th  or  not. 

Ques.  158. — What  right  had  you,  writing  at  San  Francisco  in  the 
month  of  June,  1846,  a  document  of  title  to  be  signed  by  the  Gover- 
nor of  California  at  Los  Angeles,  to  fill  up  the  date  and  write  it  out  in 
full  in  said  document  ? 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans.  158. — The  right  which  I  had  was,  that  my  agent  at  Los  An- 
geles wrote  to  me  that  the  country  was  in  a  state  of  considerable  dis- 
order, and  that  I  should  send  him  the  papers  and  "  Informes"  quickly, 
and  if  possible  the  title,  so  that  there  should  be  nothing  to  be  done  but 
to  sign  it. 

Ques.  159. — Did  you  infer  from  the  communication  of  your  agent 
at  Los  Angeles  that  the  country  was  in  such  a  disordered  condition 
that  the  Governor  of  California  and  his  Secretary  could  not  find  time 
to  fill  up  a  blank  in  your  title,  with  a  date,  and  the  name  of  the  place 
where  executed  ? 

(Objected  to.) 


703 

Ans.  159. — I  thought  nothing  about  it,  I  made  the  title  and  set  it. 

Ques.  160. — You  say  that  the  title  was  written  by  you  some  four 
or  five  days  before  its  date,  why  did  you  select  the  25th  day  of  June, 
1846,  to  be  the  date  of  your  title  ;  why  did  you  not  put  in  the  date  on 
which  you  wrote  it ;  does  not  the  selection  of  that  particular  day  out  of 
all  the  days  in  the  year,  show  that  you  did  think  about  it,  and  that  it 
was  not  inadvertently  dated  ? 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans.  160. — I  put  that  date  because  I  calculated  the  number  of  days 
that  it  would  take  the  mail  to  reach  there. 

Ques.  161. — Was  not  that  a  very  singular  proceeding  on  your  part ; 
did  you  not  consider  it  wrong  for  the  Governor  to  sign,  and  the  Secre- 
tary to  counter-sign,  an  important  document  like  this,  on  any  day 
different  from  the  date  written  in  it ;  did  you  not  fear  at  the  time  that 
the  Governor  and  Secretary  might  be  prevented  by  the  document  of 
title,  not  reaching  them  as  early  as  the  25th  June,  or  by  pressure  of 
business,  or  by  some  other  circumstance,  from  signing  that  document 
on  the  day  you  selected  for  its  date,  and  did  you  not  think,  if  such 
were  the  case,  that  the  date  you  had  written  out  so  fully,  would  have 
to  be  erased,  and  the  real  date  of  its  execution  put  in,  and  that  such 
alteration  might  subject  your  title  to  suspicion  ? 

(Question  objected  to  because  it  asks  the  witness'  opinion  upon  cer- 
tain points  of  morals  and  of  law  as  to  which  his  opinions  are  not  admis- 
sible as  evidence.) 

Ans.  161. — I  do  not  consider  this  a  question  but  an  accusation  ;  at 
that  time  I  did  not  consider  that ;  this  charge  should  rather  be  made 
against  the  Governor  for  having  signed  it ;  but  I  consider  the  title 
quite  legal  as  the  Governor  consented  to  sign  it. 

Examination  adjourned  until  to-morrow  morning,  Dec.  3d,  1857, 
at  11,  A."  M. 


San  Francisco,  Dec.  3d,  1857 :  11  A.  M. 

Cross-Examination  of  Benito  Diaz,  a  witness  produced  on  behalf  of 
the  United  States,  this  day  continued. 

Present  :  The  United  States  Attorney,  by  E.  Randolph ;  A.  C. 
Peachy,  for  Claimant. 


704 

Ques.  162. — Was  Jose*  Matias  Moreno,  who  countersigned  the  title 
of  Point  Lobos,  and  whose  name  appears  under  the  memorandum  in 
these  words  :  "  Queda  tomada  razon  de  este  titulo  en  el  libro  corres- 
pondiente,"  the  same  man  who  countersigned  your  title  to  the  orchard 
of  Santa  Clara,  and  signed  a  similar  memorandum  in  your  title  to  the 
orchard  of  Santa  Clara  ? 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans.  162. — He  is  the  same. 

Ques.  163. — You  say  you  wrote  that  title,  you  sent  it  by  mail ; 
who  carried  the  mail ;  and  how  long  did  it  ordinarily  take  the  mail  to 
to  reach  Los  Angeles  from  San  Francisco  ? 

Ans.  163. — I  do  not  remember  who  carried  the  mail ;  the  time  re- 
quired for  making  the  trip  depended  upon  the  class  of  mail  carrier ; 
the  ordinary  one  required  six  or  eight  days,  but  the  extraordinary  went 
in  less  time  ;  when  I  say  mail,  I  mean  the  person  who  carried  the  com- 
munication ;  there  were  no  post-offices  established  by  the  government 
at  that  time,  nor  any  person  regularly  employed  by  the  government 
to  carry  the  mail. 

Ques.  164. — I  understand  you  to  have  said  that  you  made  two,  and 
only  two  applications  to  Padre  Real  for  the  possession  of  this  orchard, 
one  application  through  Antonio  Osio,  your  agent,  and  the  other,  you 
and  Castaiieda  made  in  person  at  Santa  Clara  to  Padre  Real,  and 
that  it  was  during  your  visit  for  that  purpose  to  Santa  Clara  that  you 
wrote  the  petition  of  Castro  concerning  which  you  have  testified ;  am  I 
not  correct  ? 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans.  164  —Yes. 

Ques.  165. — Did  you  not  authorize  Thomas  0.  Larkin  to  take  pos- 
session of  this  orchard  ? 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans.  165.— Yes. 

Ques.  166. — Did  Larkin  make  application  to  Padre  Real,  or  any 
other  person  under  that  authority  ? 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans.  166. — I  know  that  he  took  some  measures  to  obtain  the  pos- 
session, and  afterwards  he  told  us  that  he  could  not  obtain  it. 

Ques.  167. — Did  you  and  Castaiieda  give  a  joint  authority  to  Mr. 
Larkin,  or  did  you  give  it  alone  ? 

(Objected  to.) 


705 

Ans.  167. — He  was  authorised  by  both  of  us. 
Ques.  168. — Did  you  confer  that  authority  by  a  written  instrument, 
or  merely  verbally  ? 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans.  168. — We  made  him  a  conditional  sale  of  the  orchard  of  Santa 
Clara. 

Ques.  169. — Was  that  conditional  sale  in  writing,  and  did  it  con- 
tain the  only  authority  to  Mr.  Larkin  to  take  possession  of  the  orchard 
of  Santa  Clara  ? 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans.  169. — It  was  in  writing,  but  I  do  not  remember  the  particulars 
of  the  sale. 

Ques.  170. — I  repeat  question  170  ;  answer  it. 

(Objected  to.)  . 

Ans.  170. — I  do  not  remember  whether  we  gave  it  to  him  in  writing 
or  verbally. 

Ques.  171. — Where  was  Mr.  Larkin  when  you  and  Castaneda  gave 
him  this  authority  ;  and  where  was  he  when  you  made  this  conditional 
sale  of  which  you  have  spoken  ? 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans.  171. — At  Monterey. 

Ques.  172. — How  long  was  this  after  Castaneda's  return  from  Los 
Angeles  ? 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans.  172. — I  cannot  fix  the  time,  but  a  considerable  time  had 
elapsed  ? 

Ques.  173. — Was  it  before  or  after  you  had  made  application  for 
the  possession  of  the  orchard  through  Osio  ? 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans.  173. — It  was  after. 
Ques.  174. — How  long  after  ? 

(Objected  to.) 


706 

Ans.  174. — I  have  an  idea  merely  that  it  was  two  or  three  months. 

Ques.  173. — You  say  that  you  and  Castaiieda  made  a  conditional 
sale  of  this  orchard  to  Mr.  Larkin  ;  did  you  not  afterwards  make  an 
absolute  sale  of  this  orchard  to  Mr.  Larkin  ? 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans.  175. — The  sale  we  made  absolute,  but  the  conditions  are  in  a 
separate  document. 

Ques.  176. — Was  this  absolute  sale  to  Mr.  Larkin  made  before,  or 
after,  your  application  for  the  possession  of  the  orchard  through  Osio  ? 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans.  176. — It  was  afterwards. 

Ques.  177. — Was  this  absolute  sale  made  before  or  after  your  visit 
to  Padre  Real,  when  you  wrote  the  Castro  petition  ? 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans.  177. — It  was  before,  and  I  remember  that  we  made  the  visit 
at  the  instance  of  Larkin  himself,  and  I  have  an  idea  that  he  himself 
furnished  us  with  the  means  of  making  the  trip. 

Ques.  178. — You  have  said  that  your  conditional  sale  to  Larkin 
was  made  a  considerable  time  after  your  application  for  the  possession 
of  the  orchard  by  Osio.  You  have  also  said  that  Osio  lost  your  ori- 
ginal title  paper.  How  long  after  the  said  loss  was  it  before  you 
found  them  ? 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans.  178. — I  do  not  remember  the  time,  but  I  must  have  a  letter 
which  was  written  to  me  by  Jose'  Fernandez  when  he  found  them. 

Ques.  179. — Have  you  no  idea  of  the  time  ;  was  it  one,  two,  three, 
or  four  weeks  ?  I  want  your  best  recollection. 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans.  179. — I  cannot  recollect ;  but  to  satisfy  you  I  will  say  that 
it  was  three,  four,  or  five  weeks. 

Ques.  180. — What  did  you  do  with  the  title  papers  when  you  re- 
covered them  ? 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans.  180. — I  think  it  was  then  we  made  the  sale  to  Larkin. 


707 

Ques.  181. — What  did  you  do  with  the  papers  ? 

Ans.  181. — When  I  received  them  from  Fernandez,  I  delivered 
them  to  Castaenda. 

Ques.  182. — In  your  answer  180,  which  do  you  mean,  your  condi- 
tional or  your  absolute  sale  to  Larkin  ? 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans.  182. — There  was  only  one  sale  to  Larkin,  but  that  sale  was 
upon  the  condition  that  if  he  took  possession  of  the  Orchard  he  would 
pay  us  the  money,  and  if  not,  it  should  all  remain  void  ;  these  condi- 
tions were  written  in  a  document  separate  from  the  sale. 

Ques.  183. — Was  that  document  of  sale  and  the  instrument  con- 
taining the  conditions  written  at  the  same  time  ? 

(Objected  to.)  * 

Ans.  183.— Yes. 

Ques.  184. — Look  at  the  document  shown  you,  and  say  if  you 
know  the  hand-writing?  (Attorney  for  Claimant  showing  witness  a 
document.) 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans.  184. — Yes,  I  know  it. 

Ques.  185. — Do  you  know  the  signatures  ? 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans.  185.— Yes. 

Ques.  186. — Whose  are  they  ? 

Ans.  186. — One  is  mine,  and  the  other  is  Juan  Castaneda's. 

Ques.  187. — What  date  does  that  instrument  bear  ? 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans.  187.— Sept.  27, 1846. 

Ques.  188.     In  whose  handwriting  is  the  body  of  it  ? 

Objected  to.) 

Ans.  188.     It  is  my  handwriting. 

Ques.  189.  Look  at  this  document  and  say  if  you  know  the  hand- 
writing and  signature  ?     (This  is  another  document.) 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans.  189.     Yes. 


ros 

Ques.  190.  In  whose  handwriting  is  the  document ;  whose  are  the 
signatures  ? 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans.  190.  The  handwriting  of  the  document  is  that  of  Juan  Cas- 
taneda, and  the  signatures  are  his.  and  mine. 

Ques.  191.  In  whose  handwriting  are  the  words  "  Monterey,  Sbre. 
27  de  1846,"  on  the  first  document  shown  you,  and  in  whose  hand- 
writing are  the  words  "  Y  para  que  conste  lo  firmamos  en  el  Puerto 
de  Monterey,  a  27  de  Sebr.  de  1846;"  in  the  last  document  shown 
you  ;  and  were  not  these  words  intended  to  express  the  place  where 
these  documents  were  executed,  and  the  date  of  their  execution  ? 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans.  191.  The  words  mentioned  and  which  are  in  the  first  docu- 
ment, are  in  my  handwriting,  and  those  of  the  second  document  are 
in  Castaneda' s  handwriting,  these  words  were  used  to  express  the 
place  where  the  documents  were  executed,  and*  the  date  of  their  ex- 
ecution. 

Ques.  192.  Were  these  documents  made  at  the  time  and  place 
they  purport  ? 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans.  192.     Yes. 

Ques.  193.  Is  the  Castaneda  whose  name  is  signed  to  them,  the 
same  Castaneda  of  whom  you  huve  spoken  all  along  in  this  deposition  ? 

(Objected  Jo.) 

Ans.  193.     He  is  the  same. 

(It  is  admitted  by  the  U.  S.  Attorney,  that  the  two  papers  shown 
the  witness,  and  concerning  which  he  has  testified  in  his  answer  on 
his  cross  examination,  Nos.  184,  185,  186, 187,  188,  189,  190,  191, 
192,  193,  are  part  of  the  archives  of  the  United  States  Land  Com- 
mission, in  the  claim  of  Thomas  0.  Larkin  for  the  Orchard  of  Santa 
Clara,  No.  744,  which  archives  exist  in  and  are  a  part  of  the  archives 
of  the  U.  S.  Surveyor  General  for  California,  and  that  they  were 
brought  before  this  Commissioner  by  a  deputy  from  the  said  Surveyor 
General's  office,  in  charge  of  said  archives.) 

(A  copy  of  the  paper  concerning  which  the  witness  has*  testified  in 


709 

his  answers  on  cross-examination  from  No.  184  to  188,  both  inclusive, 
is  attached  to  this  deposition,  and  marked  "  Exhibit  No.  1.  X.,  an- 
nexed to  deposition  of  Benito  Diaz.") 

(Also  a  copy  of  the  paper  concerning  which  the  witness  has  testi- 
fied in  his  answers  on  cross-examination  from  No.  189  to  193,  both  in- 
clusive, is  attached  to  this  deposition,  and  marked  "  Exhibit  No.  2, 
X.  annexed  to  deposition  of  Benito  Diaz.") 

Ques.  194.  Did  Castaneda  sign  both  of  these  documents  in  your 
presence  ? 

(Objected  to.) 

Ans.  194.     Yes,  he  did. 

Ques.  195.  You  have  stated  that  after  you  received  a  subpoena  to 
testify  in  this  case,  you  looked  for  James  Crane  for  the  purpose  of 
getting  him  to  translate  it  for  you.  Did  you  find  him  ;  did  he  trans- 
late it  for  you,  and  hpw  long  after  you  received  it  ? 

Ans.  195.  I  met  him  the  same  evening  that  I  received  the  sub- 
poena, and  he  translated  it  for  me. 

Ques.  196.  Look  at  the  document  now  shown  you,  purporting  to 
be  your  deposition  on  behalf  of  the  Claimants  in  the  case  of  the 
United  States  vs.  Joseph  C.  Palmer,  No.  394,  being  an  appeal  from 
the  Board  of  the  U.  S.  Land  Commission  in  Case  No.  515  on  the 
Docket  of  said  Board,  which  deposition  purports  to  have  been  begun 
on  the  7th  May,  1857,  and  to  have  been  sworn  to  and  subscribed  on 
the  11th  May,  1857,  before  J.  Edgar  Grymes,  Special  Commissioner, 
and  look  especially  at  the  following  words  in  said  deposition : 

"  I  know  Mr.  James  C.  Crane  well,  it  is  doubtful  if  he  is  a  man  of 
veracity,  I  would  not  believe  him  on  his  oath." 

State  if  you  made  this  deposition  on  oath,  and  if  that  part  to  which 
you  have  been  referred,  correctly  expresses  the  testimony  you  gave 
on  that  occasion  ? 

Ans.  196.  I  think  it  is  not  very  correct ;  I  remember  that  I  said 
that  I  would  not  believe  his  oath  in  the  aforesaid  case. 

Ques.  197.     Who  was  the  interpreter  ? 

Ans.  197.  The  person  who  wrote  the  deposition,  the  Commis- 
sioner. 

Ques.  198.  Did  you  not  say  shortly  after  you  made  your  first  in- 
spection of  these  documents,  to  Antonio  Maria  Pico  and  Jose  Fernan- 
dez, or  either  of  them,  at  the  St.  Francis  Hotel  in  this  city,  that  this 
document  (meaning  the  Castro  petition)  was  written  by  you,  before 
you  went  south  in  the  expedition  of  Castro  which  you  have  mentioned  ? 

Ans.  198.     No.     They  asked  me  if  I  had  written  the  document, 


710 

and  I  told  them  I  had,  but  I  believed  it  very  good,  because  I  had 
written  it  in  Father  Real's  room  ;  we  said  nothing  about  the  expedi- 
tion of  Castro,  nor  of  my  having  gone  with  it. 

Ques.  199.  You  said,  when  you  first  examined  these  documents, 
you  told  Mr.  Laurencel,  that  you  only  recognised  the  handwriting  of 
Castaiieda,  and  that  you  left  immediately,  so  that  Mr.  Laurencel  did 
not  have  an  opportunity  to  question  you  concerning  your  own  hand- 
writing in  the  Castro  petition,  and  this  because  you  did  not  wish  to  be 
a  witness  in  the  case  ;  you  also  testified  that  you  had  no  communica- 
tion with  Mr.  Laurencel,  or  any  agent  of  his,  directly  or  indirectly, 
until  you  met  him  on  Montgomery  street  on  your  return  from  San 
Josd,  on  which  occasion  all  that  passed  between  you  was  a  salutation, 
and  an  invitation  from  Mr.  Laurencel  thas  you  would  inspect  the  same 
papers  the  following  day ;  you  also  stated  that  you  accepted  the  invi- 
tation, and  did  inspect  the  papers  accordingly,  and  that  on  such  in- 
spection Mr.  Laurencel  asked  you  quite  a  number  of  questions,  all  of 
which  you  answered.  By  what  means  had  your  repugnance  to  giving 
your  testimony  in  this  case  been  overcome  ? 

Ans  199.  I  never  expected  to  be  a  witness  ;  I  never  told  Mr. 
Laurencel  in  my  answers  that  I  remembered  when  I  had  made  it,  I 
therefore  considered  they  would  not  require  me ;  if  I  had  known  they 
were  going  to  take  me  by  surprise,  I  would  have  endeavored  to  avoid 
it. 

Ques.  200.  It  appears  then  you  were  not  so  much  on  your  guard 
when  you  made  the  second  inspection  of  these  documents  as  you  were 
when  you  made  the  first,  and  you  had  no  suspicion  then  that  Mr. 
Laurencel  desired  your  testimony  in  this  cause ;  why  were  you  so 
much  more  confiding  on  the  last  inspection  of  the  papers  than  on  the 
first,  and  what  reason  had  you  to  believe  that  the  time  of  your  writing 
the  Castro  Petition  was  a  matter  of  importance  to  Mr.  Laurencel, 
and  that  if  he  could  not  prove  by  you  that  it  was  written  on  a  day 
different  from  that  on  which  it  bears  date,  yo  i  were  in  no  danger  of 
being  called  on  to  testify  in  this  case  ? 

Ans.  200. — I  did  not  know  that  it  was  a  matter  of  importance 
to  him  ;  I  was  not  acquainted  with  the  affair. 

Ques.  201. — Have  you  nothing  more  to  say  in  answer  to  the  last 
question  ? 

Ans.  201. — As  Mr.  Laurencel  asked  me  several  questions  which 
were  not  very  clear  I  answered  him,  and  I  did  not  suspect  that 
he  wonld  call  me  as  a  witness  :  I  knew  nothing  about  the  affair. 

Ques.  202. — You  have  already  declared  positively  that  while 
yon  were  making  the  second  examination  of  ttiese  documents  you 
censidered  that  Mr.  Laurencel  would  not  require  your  testimony 
because  you  had  not  yet  told  him  when  you  wrote  the  Castro  pe- 
tition, and  yon  now  declare  positively,  that  at  the  time  you  made 


711 

the  second  examination  of  the  papers  you  knew  nothing  about  this 
affair.  These  two  declarations  are  contradictory;  which  do  you 
now  say  is  the  true  one  ? 

(Question  objected  to  because  it  assumes  a  contradiction  where 
there  is  none,  and  asks  the  witness  to  admit  that  an  answer  which 
he  has  given  is  false,  without  any  reason  for  assuming  the  false- 
hood of  such  answer.) 

Ans.  202. — I  do  not  understand  the  question  :  I  see  no  contra- 
diction in  these  two  answers  ;  I  never  supposed  that  my  testimony 
was  important. 

Ques.  203. — When  was  the  last  time  you  saw  the  newspaper 
which  spoke  of  the  difficulty  you  had  with  Padre  Real? 

Ans.  203. — It  is  many  years  ago  ;  I  have  only  seen  it  once  or 
twice  since  it  was  published. 

Ques.  204. — Have  you  seen  it  during  the  last  year  ? 

Ans.  204.— No. 

Ques.  205. — Has  any  one  told  you  anything  about  it  during  that 
time? 

Ans.  205.— No. 

Ques.  206. — State  fully  what  you  remember  of  the  publication 
in  the  newspaper  you  have  mentioned  ? 

Ans.  206. — I  do  not  remember  what  the  newspaper  stated  ;  1 
have  an  idea  it  spoke  about  the  possession  of  the  orchard. 

Ques.  207. — Did  that  publication  contain  a  letter  of  yours  to 
Padre  Real;  if  yea,  did  it  contain  the  Padre's  reply  to  your  letter? 
You  have  stated  in  your  Cross  Examination  that  you  made  a  reply 
to  some  letter  of  the  Padre's  after  you  had  discovered  the  treat- 
ment of  the  Padre  and  Osio  of  which  you  have  spoken.  When 
was  your  reply  made  ? 

Ans.  207. — I  do  not  remember,  but  I  think  there  is  a  letter  in 
the  publication,  a  letter  of  mine  to  Father  Real  ;  he  first  published 
a  letter  of  mine,  and  I  afterwards  published  my  r^ply  ;  Father 
Real  said  something  no  doubt  accompanying  my  first  letter. 

Ques.  208. — Was  Mr.  Larkin's  name  mentioned  in  your  letter 
to  Padre  Real  which  was  published  ? 

Ans.  208. — I  do  not  remember, 

Examination  in  Chief  Resumed. 

Questions  by  United  States  Attorney. 

Ques.  1. — You  have  been  asked  a  great  many  questions  on  your 
Cross  Examination,  and  a  great  many  subjects  have  been  intro- 


712 

duced;  do  you  now  desire  to  say  anything  in  explanation  of  any 
of  the  answers  you  have  made  ? 

Ans.  1. — I  would  like  to  read  all  my  deposition. 

Ques.  2. — Was  there  any  newspaper  published  in  California  in 
the  year  1846,  before  the  Americans  took  possession  of  the  coun- 
try, and  how  long  after  was  it  before  one  was  published  ? 

Ans.  2. — There  was  no  newspaper  published  in  California  be- 
fore its  conquest  by  the  Americans,  shortly  after  that  there  was. 

Ques.  3. — When  in  June  1846  Genl.  Castro  had  his  head-quar- 
ters at  Santa  Clara,  did  he  have  a  Secretary,  and  if  so,  who  was 
he? 

Ans.  3. — He  had  ;  sometimes  Castaneda  was  his  Secretary,  and 
at  other  times  Arce. 

(Question  and  Answer  objected  to  as  intraducing  a  new  subject 
after  the  direct  and  Cross  Examination  of  the  witness  has  been 
concluded.) 

Ques.  4. — Was  one  of  these  Secretary  and  the  other  Assistant, 
and  if  so  which  ? 

Ans.  4. — Juan  Castaneda  was  the  Secretary  and  the  other  was 
the  Assistant. 

(Objected  to  as  before.) 

Ques.  5. — Were  both  of  these  persons,  or  either  of  them  pres- 
ent with  Genl.  Castro  at  Santa  Clara  during  the  said  month  of 
June  1846? 

Ans.  5. — Yes,  they  were  both  there. 

(Question  and  Answer  objected  to  as  before.) 

Ques.  6. — During  that  time  did  you  write  for  Genl.  Castro  any 
paper  whatsoever  ? 

Ans.  6. — I  do  not  remember  to  have  written. 

(Objected  to  as  before.) 

Ques.  7. — Do  you  remember  to  have  acted  as  his  Secretary  at 
any  time  during  that  campaign  ? 
Ans.  7. — I  never  was  his  Secretary. 

(Objected  to  as  before.^ 

Ques.  8. — Do  you  remember  anything  which  occurred  on  the 
occasion  of  your  visit  to  Padre  Real  when  you  wrote  the  petition 


713 

signed  Jose  Castro  which  fixed  in  your  recollection  that  circum- 
stance ?  I  .mean  anything  occurring  between  you  and  Castaneda, 
whom  you  have  said  was  your  companion  ? 

Ans.  8. — What  I  have  fixed  in  my  memory  is  that  we  went  on 
that  occasion  to  claim  the  orchard  of  Santa  Clara. 

(The  United  States  Atorney  here  asks  the  Commissioner  to  read 
the  question  again  to  the  witness.  To  which  the  Counsel 
for  the  Claimant  objects,  on  the  ground  that  the  witness  has  al- 
ready answered  the  question,  and  that  a  second  reading  might  have 
the  effect  of  reminding  the  witness  that  he  has  left  unsaid  some- 
thing which  is  expected  from  him.) 

(Question  is  read  again  to  the  witness  under  exception.) 

Ques.  9. — Do  you  remember  anything  which  passed  between 
yourself  and  Castaneda  during  that  visit,  or  soon  after  leaving, 
or  at  any  time  subsequent,  which  tends  to  fix  in  your  recollection 
the  fact  of  your  having  written  that  petition  at  that  time  ? 

Ans.  9.  I  remember  something  ;  when  I  and  Charley  Clayton 
and  James  Crane  went  to  Sonoma  in  the  year  1849  or  1850  to 
buy  Castaneda's  share  in  the  Orchard  of  Santa  Clara  Castaneda 
made  some  explanations  to  me  and  some  complaints  of  Padre  Real, 
about  the  bad  treatment  he  had  given  him  in  the  affair  of  the 
orchard,  that  we  did  not  take  possession  of  the  orchard  on  ac- 
count of  Father  Real,  and  he  then  told  me  that  he  had  written 
some  things  to  Father  Real,  and  that  he  had  hopes  of  some  day 
getting  revenge.  He  did  not  tell  me  what  he  had  written  to  Fa- 
ther Real. 

Ques.  10. — Is  not  the  Crane  of  whom  you  have  testsfied  a  per- 
son well  known  to  a  great  many  of  the  native  Californians,  and  is 
he  not  very  frequently  employed  by  persons  interested  in  law 
suits  growing  out  of  matters  which  happened  under  the  Mexican 
Government  of  this  country,  as  an  Agent  to  hunt  up  witnesses  and 
procure  testimony? 

(Question  objected  to  as  leading.) 

Ans.  10. — Yes. 

Examination  adjourned  until  12  o'clock,  Dec.  4,  1857. 


53 


714 

San  Francisco,  Dec.  4,  1857. 

Examination  of  Benito  Diaz,  a  witness  produced  on  behalf  of 
the  United  States,  this  day  continued. 

Present. — United  States  Attorney,  by  E.  Randolph  ;  A.  C. 
Peachy  for  Claimant. 

Counsels  for  the  respective  parties  having  no  more  questions  to 
put  to  the  witness,  and  his  deposition  being  read  over  to  him,  he 
desires  to  correct  the  following  statement  made  by  him  injhis  18th 
Ans.,  on  his  direct  examination,  which  correct  statement  is  as  fol- 
lows : 

"  Having  examined  the  documents  which  were  shown  to  me  yes- 
terday, on  Cross  Examination,  being  the  document  numbered  No. 
1  X,  annexed  to  the  deposition  of  Benito  Diaz,  and  No.  2  X,  an- 
nexed to  the  deposition  of  Benito  Diaz,  I  see  that  Castafieda  re- 
turned to  Monterey  three  or  four  weeks  after  I  arrived  there." 

BENITO  DIAZ. 

Sworn  to  and  subscribed  before  me  this  4th  Dec.  1857. 

cutler  McAllister, 

seal  £  U.  S.  Com. 


715 

EXHIBIT  "No.  1  X,"   ATTACHED  TO  THE  DEPOSITION 
OF  BENITO  DIAZ. 

Por  el  presente  damos  poder  ampleo  y  bastante  al  Sr  D.  Tomas  0. 
Larkin  para  que  tome  posecion  de  las  huertas  de  Sta  Clara  y  S.  Jose* 
que  hemos  comprado  legalmte  al  Gobierno  de  el  Departamt0  como  con- 
sta  de  las  escrituras  que  con  esta  fha,  entregamos  &  dcho.,  Sor  e  para 
su  constancia  y  que  hago  el  uso  que  combenga  k  ambas  partes. 

Monterey  Sbre  27  de  1846. 

(Signed)  BENITO  DIAZ. 

(Signed)  "J.  DE  CASTASEDA. 

(Endorsed) 

NO.  754. 

Thomas  0.  Larkin, 

I  of  Orchard  of  Santa  Clara. 

Exhibit  No.  3. 

Filed  in  office  July  25, 1854. 

GEO.  FISHER, 

Setfy. 

Recorded  in  Rec.  of  Evid.,  vol.  18,  p.  594. 

(Endorsed) 

Power  of  Attorney  from  Diaz  &  Castaneda  respecting  two  orchards, 
Santa  Clara  &  San  Jose*. 

"  Exhibit  No.  3." 

Recorded  in  the  Book  B  of  records  of  the  municipality  of  Monte- 
rey, page  31. 

March  2nd,  1850. 

WM.  S.  JOHNSON. 


716 

EXHIBIT   "  No.  2  X,"  ANNEXED   TO  THE  DEPOSITION 
OF  BENITO  DIAZ. 

Todas  los  q  las  presentes  rieren  Sabed,  q  los  q  abujo  firmamos  nos 
comprometamos  &  vender  &  D.  Tomas  0.  Larkin  la  parte  de  las  huer- 
tas  de  Santa  Clara  y  San  Jose,  q  nos  pertenecen  por  la  compra  que  de 
ellas  hicimos  al  Gobierno  del  Departm10  como  consta  de  las  respectivas 
escrituras  q  en  esta  fecha  entregamos  al  espresado.  Sor  Larkin  siendo 
las  condiciones  de  la  venta  las  siguientes  a  saber  que  dentro  de  dos 
jueses  contadas  desde  esta  fecha,  si  se  verifica  la  venta,  el  Sor  Larkin 
nos  dara  dos  mil  y  quinientos  pesos  en  plata,  y  en  caro  de  no  conve 
nirle,  que  dara  el  contrato  sin  efecto,  devolviendonas  las  apresadas  es- 
crituras. Por  tanto,  si  dentro  del  tiempo  mencionado  faltavemos  alo 
estipulado  en  el  presente  documento ;  nos  obligamos  k  satisfaces  al 
referida  Sor  Larkin  los  perjucios  q  por  la  falta  de  complimento  nos 
hago  de  cargo.  Y  para  que  conste  lo  firmamos  en  el  puerto  de  Mon- 
terey a  27  de  Sbre  de  1846. 

(Signed)  BENITO  DIAZ. 

(Signed)    J.  DE  CASTANEDA. 

(Endorsed) 

No.  754. 

Thomas  0.  Larkin. 

\  of  Orchard  of  Santa  Clara. 

Exhibit  No.  4. 

Filed  in  office  July  25, 1854. 

GEO.  FISHER, 

Sec'y. 

Recorded  in  Rec  of  Evid  vol  18  page  594,  595. 


DEPOSITION  OF  BENITO  DIAZ  IN  SPANISH. 

Preg.  3. — Cuando  fue  escrito.  Si  se  puede  Vd  acordar,  y  si  se 
acuerda  diga  cuales  son  los  circumstancias  que  le  hacen  a  Vd  acordar- 
se  de  la  fecha  con  tanta  precision. 

Res.  3. — No  me  acuerdo  de  la  fecha  en  que  se  escribio. 

Preg.  4. — En  que  ano,  o  en  que  ano  poco  mas  o  menos  se  escribio. 


717 

Res.  4. — Me  acuerdo  haberlo  escrito  pero  no  me  acuerdo  en  que 
ano. 

Preg.  5.— Acuerdese  Vd  si  puede  de  las  circunstancias  bajo  las 
cuales  se  escribia  ;  en  que  ocasion  en  que  lugar  a  instancia  de  quien, 
quien  estaba  con  Vd  &c. 

Res.  5. — Me  acuerdo  que  lo  escribi  en  Santa  Clara,  a  mego  del 
Padre  Real  el  me  digo  que  le  Secaia  una  copia  de  un  documento  que 
el  tenia  en  la  mano  y  yo  creo  que  es  esta  misma  es  lo  que  escribi. 
Habian  dos  personas  alii  uno  era  Juan  Castaneda  y  otro  el  llamo  de  la 
mision. 

Preg.  6. — Vivia  Vd  en  la  mision  entonces,  y  si  no  que  hacia  Vd 
alii  entonces,  y  que  hacia  Castaneda  alii. 

Res.  6. — Habiamos  venido  a  un  negocio  yo  y  Castaneda,  con  el  Pa- 
dre Real,  habiamos  venido  a  solicitar  posecion  de  la  puerta  de  Santa 
Clara. 

Preg.  7. — De  donde  vinieron  Vds,  cuando  vinieron  a  solicitar  pos- 
sesion de  la  puerta  del  Pardro  Real  ?  adonde  habian  estado  ? 

Resp.  7. — Venimos  de  Monterey  alii  habiamos  estado. 

Preg.  8. — Y  a  Monterey  de  donde  vinieron,  adondone  habian  es- 
tado. 

Res.  8. — Habiamos  estado  en  Monterey ;  no  habiamos  venido  de 
ninguna  parte. 

Preg.  9. — Cuanto  tiempo  pennanecieron  Vds  en  Monterey  antes  de 
salir  para  Santa  Clara  para  solicitar  possecion  de  ese  huerta. 

Res.  9. — Ya  vivia  en  Monterey  y  Castaneda  en  esa  vez  estaba  rad- 
icado  alii. 

Preg.  10. — Se  acuerda  Vd  de  algo  tocante  a  la  retirada  del  Genl. 
Castro  de  por  aca  ariba  para  el  sur  cuando  los  Americanos  invadieron 
el  pais. 

Res.  10. — Si  me  acuerdo. 

Preg.  11. — Se  acuerda  Vd  de  algunos  de  los  que  se  retivaron  con 
el  y  si  se  acuerda  a  Vd  los  nombres  de  aquellos  de  quienes  se  puede 
Vd  acordar. 

Res.  11. — Me  acuerdo  del  Sor  Alvarado,  Antonio  Maria  Pico  un 
tal  Pinto  y  la  mayor  parte  del  pueblo. 

Preg.  12. — Como  fue  con  Vd  y  Castaneda  Vds  tambien  se  fueron 
o  quedaron. 

Res.  12. — Cuando  tomaron  Monterey  Yo  estaba  alii  y  a  las  3  o  4 
dias  despues  me  uni  con  la  division  que  iba  con  Castro  y  que  estaba  en 
el  llamo  de  Monterey,  y  encontre  a  Castaneda  alii,  iba  el  tambien  con 
con  la  division  de  Castro. 

Preg.  13. — Despues  de  haberse  Vd  unido  con  el  Genl.  Castro  en  el 
llano  de  Monterey  para  donde  se  fue"  Vd. 

Res.  13. — Para  "  Los  Angeles." 


718 

Preg.  14. — Cuanto  tiempo  se  quedo  Vd  por  el  sur  de  la  California 
antes  de  volverse  a  Monterey. 

Res.  14. — Un  mes  mas  6  menos. 

Preg.  15. — Se  volvio  Yd  a  Monterey  antes  que  los  Americanos  to- 
maron  Los  Angeles  la  primera  vez  o  despues. 

Res.  15. — Sali  la  noche  antes  que  lo  tomaron  la  primera  vez. 

Preg.  16. — Quien  vino  con  Vd. 

Res.  16. — Vinieron  varios,  me  acuerdo  de  Fernandez,  Chaboya,  An- 
tonio Maria  Pico  y  muchos  otros. 

Preg.  17. — Juan  Castaneda  fue  uno  de  ellos. 

Res.  17.— No. 

Preg.  18. — Cuanto  tiempo  despues  poco  mas  o  menos  fiie*  cuando 
Vd  vio  a  Juan  Castaiieda  en  Monterey. 

Res.  18. — Tres  o  cuatro  meses  despues. 

Preg.  19. — Fue  despues  que  Vd  vio  a  Juan  Castaneda  en  Monte- 
rey en  esa  ocasion  que  Vd  y  el  fueron  a  Santa  Clara  para  solicitar  po- 
sesion  de  la  huerta  al  padre  Real '{  Quien  decir  fue  antes  o  despues 
de  la  vuelta  de  Castaneda  del  sur. 

Res.  19. — Fue  despues  de  la  vuelta  de  Castaneda  del  sur. 

Preg.  20. — Cuanto  tiempo  despues  fue  segun  puede  Vd  acordarse 
ahora. 

Res.  20. — Fus  cinco  o  seis  meses  despues. 

Preg.  21. — En  esa  visita  de  Vd  y  Castaneda  fiie*  cuando  Vd  escri- 
bio  el  papel  de  que  se  ha  hablado  en  su  testimonio  o  fue  en  alguna  otra 
ocasion. 

Res.  21. — Esa  vez  fue'. 

Preg.  22. — Se  acuerda  Vd  de  alguna  ocurrencia  que  tuvo  lugar  al 
tiempo  que  Vd  escribio  el  papel  que  le  hace  acordarse  del  hecho  de 
haberlo  Vd  escrito  ese  papel. 

Res.  22. — Me  acuerdo  solamente  que  el  Padre  Real  me  dictaba  con 
un  papel  y  que  estaba  alii  Castaneda  tambien. 

Preg.  23. — Vea  Vd  el  papel  otra  vez  vea  la  firma  del  papel  vea  el 
decreto  que  tiene  el  papel  en  la  margen  y  diga  si  la  dicha  firma  y  el 
dicho  decreto  en  el  margen  estuvieron  en  el  papel  cuando  Vd  lo  escri- 
bio, o  si  se  pusieron  despues  en  su  presencia  o  si  sabe  Vd  algo  tocante 
a  ellos. 

Res.  23. — No  se  nada  tocante  a  ellos,  no  habia  firma  ni  decreto  en 
el  cuando  yo  lo  escrivi.  Luego  que  acabe  de  escribirlo  lo  tomo  el  Pa- 
dre Real  y  lo  guardo. 

Preg.  24. — Vea  Vd  los  otros  tres  instrumentos  contenidos  en  dicho 
Documento  es  decir  el  Documento  presentado  por  S.  0.  Houghton  y 
diga  si  tiene  algun  conocimiento  tocante  a  la  letra  de  ellos,  y  si  tiene 
que  es  ?  Y  diga  si  sabe  algo  tocante  a  la  escritura  o  preparacion  de 
ellos  y  si  sabe,  que  es  lo  que  sabe  ? 

Res.  24. — La  primera  representacion  de  Castillero  conosco  que  esta 


719 

escrito  en  la  letra  de  Castaueda  no  conosco  la  letra  de  los  otros  dos 
instrumentos.  Ne  se  nada  tocante  a  la  escritura  o  preparacion  de  nin- 
guno  ellos. 

Preg.  26. — Quien  es  el  pose'e  ahora  el  derecho  de  Yds.  a  en  esa 
huerta  bajo  el  cual  quisieron  obtener  possecion. 

Res.  26. — Charley  Clayton  es  el  que  lo  posee\ 

Preg.  27. — Cuando  algunos  dias  despues  que  los  Americanos  toma- 
ron  Monterey  se  unio  Yd  con  el  Genl.  Castro  en  el  llano  de  Monterey 
como  ha  dicho  Yd.  en  su  testimonio,  fue  esa  la  primera  vez  que  Yd  se 
unio  con  el  durante  esa  Campana  contra  los  Americanos. 

Res.  2T. — No  fue  esa  la  primera  vez. 

Preg.  28. — Cuando  y  en  que  lugar  habia  estado  Yd  con  el  antes 
durante  esa  Campana  y  cuando  y  en  que  lugar  lo  dejo  Yd  a  el. 

Res.  28. — Habia  estado  con  el  antes  en  Santa  Clara  y  en  la  Contra 
Costa  ;  lo  dege  en  Santa  Clara  tres  o  cuatro  dias  despues  que  volvi- 
mos  de  la  Contra  Costa  y  me  fue  para  Monterey. 

Preg.  29. — Sabe  Yd  en  que  dias  estuvo  Yd  en  Contra  Costa  con  el 
Genl.  Castro  y  en  que  dia  se  volvieron  a  Santa  Clara. 

Res.  29. — No,  me  puedo  acordar. 

Preg.  30. — Cuantos  dias  antes  que  los  Americanos,  tomaron  Mon- 
terey fue  cuando  Yd  dejo  el  Genl.  Castro  en  Santa  Clara. 

Res.  30. — Yo  me  acuerdo  que  sali  de  Santa  Clara  el  dia  4  de  Julio 
y  los  Americanos  tomaron  Monterey  el  dia  7  de  Julio. 

Preg.  31. — Mientras  que  estuvo  Yd  en  Contra  Costa  o  en  Santa 
Clara  en  el  tiempo  ultimamente  mencionado  Escribio  Yd  o  no  algun 
papel  tocante  a  esta  mina  a  mego  del  Genl.  Castro  o  del  Padre  Real  o 
de  alguna  otra  persona,  o  por  su  propia  voluntad. 

Res.  31. — No.     Ninguno. 

Preg.  32. — No  esta  muerto  Castaneda  ahora. 

Res.  32. — Si  esta  muerto. 

Cross-Examination. 

Preg.  1. — Despues  que  Yd  copio  el  Documento  que  le  enseno  el 
Padre  Keal  cuando  volvio  Yd  a  ver  la  copia  que  Yd  saco  ? 

Res.  1  — Lo  vi  aqui  en  este  cuarto  hace  como  quince  dias. 

Preg.  2. — Quien  estuvo  con  Yd  cuando  lo  vio  ?  vino  Yd  aqui  para 
verlo  ;  y  si  para  eso  vino,  que  le  trajo  a  Yd  aca. 

Res.  2. — Los  Sores  Cambuston  y  Laurencel  estuvieron  con  migo 
cuando  lo  vi.  Yine  a  verlo  porque  el  Sor  Laurencel  me  digo  que  vi- 
niese  aqui  para  ver  si  yo  conocia  la  letra  de  algunos  papeles  que  exis- 
tian  aqui. 

Preg.  3. — No  estuvieron  otras  personas  con  Yd  en  ese  tiempo  o  en 
esa  ocasion. 


720 

Res.  3. — Habian  varias  otras  personas  alii  viendo  el  documento  y 
entre  ellos  estuvo  el  Sor. 

Preg.  4. — En  segunda  cuando  volvio  Vd  a  ver  el  dicho  documento. 

Res.  4. — Hace  cinco  o  seis  dias  que  lo  vi  aqui  en  este  otro  cuatro. 

Preg.  5. — A  mego  de  quien  vino  Vd  a  examinarlo  por  segunda  vez 
y  quien  estuvo  presente  cuando  hizo  el  segundo  examen  el. 

Res.  5. — A  mego  del  Sor  Laurencel  vine  la  segunda  vez.  Estu- 
vieron  presentes  el  Sor  Laurencel  y  estos  dos  Sores. 

Preg.  6. — Despues  cuando  examino  ese  documento  y  a  mego  de 
quien. 

Res.  6. — No  lo  he  vuelto  a  ver  hasta  ayer  cuando  lo  vi  aqui. 

Preg.  7. — Tiene  Vd  alguna  residencia  permanente  en  algun  lugar 
como  gana  Vd  la  vida. 

Res.  7. — Tengo  una  residencia  permanente  y  gano  la  vida  traba- 
jando. 

Preg.  8. — En  donde  vive  Vd  y  que  clase  de  trabajo  hace  Vd  para 
ganar  la  vida. 

Res.  8. — Vino  en  Monterey,  alii  tengo  mi  casa,  tengo  una  parte  de 
un  Rancho  y  alii  tengo  otra  casa  y  en  el  mismo  Rancho  estoy  cultivan- 
do  una  huerta. 

Preg.  9. — Como  se  llama  ese  Rancho  y  quienes  son  los  dueiios  de 
las  otras  partes  de  el  ? 

Res.  9. — Se  llama  "  El  Piojo  "  los  hermanos  de  mi  muger  son  los 
duenos  de  las  otras  partes  de  el. 

Preg.  10. — Cuanto  tiempo  hace  que  esta  Vd  en  San  Francisco  esta 
vez. 

Res.  10. — Como  tres  semanas  mas  o  menos. 

Preg.  11. — En  que  se  ha  ocupado  Vd  aqui. 

Res.  11. — Vine  a  arreglar  un  negocio  con  el  Sor  Alvarado. 

Preg.  12. — Quien  le  dijo  a  Vd  primero  que  habia  un  documento 
que  se  estaba  usando  en  esta  causa,  en  su  letra  de  Vd. 

Res.  12. — Nadie  me  lo  digo.  No  supe  que  habia  uno  hasta  que  lo 
vi. 

Preg.  13. — Que  le  digo  a  Vd  el  Sor  Laurencel  cuando  le  digo  que 
viniese  Vd  a  examinarlo  diga  todo  lo  que  el  le  digo  a  Vd  en  esa  oca- 
sion. 

Res.  13. — Vino  el  y  me  digo  que  le  hiciese  el  favor  de  venir  a  ver 
si  conocia  yo  las  letras  y  venimos,  Cambuston  y  yo.  Yo  reconosi  la 
de  Castaneda  y  la  mina  pero  dige  que  conocia  solamente  la  de  Castan- 
eda.  Despues  a  los  3  o  4  dias  me  fui  para  San  Jose*  y  volvi  aqui  otra 
vez ;  y  me  volvio  a  mandar  llamar  el  Sor  Laurencel  me  parece  que  fue 
el  viernes ;  y  me  pregunto  si  era  verdad  que  era  mi  letra  esa,  y  me 
hizo  otras  varias  preguntas,  y  me  digo  que  estaba  bueno  que  me  agra- 
decia  mucho.     Y  el  sabado  el  Marshal  me  llevo  una  subpoena. 


721 

Preg.  14. — El  Sor  Laurencel  le  hablo  a  Vd  en  Espaiiol  o  converso 
con  Vd  por  medio  de  un  interprete. 

Res.  14. — Me  hablo  en  Espanol. 

Preg.  15. — Cuales  fueron  las  otras  preguntas  que  le  hizo  a  Vd  el 
Sor  Laurenzel  en  esa  ocasion. 

Res.  15. — Me  pregunto  que  cuando  habia  escrito  yo  ese  documen- 
to,  adonde  y  en  presencia  de  quien,  y  varias  otras  que  no  tengo  pre- 
sente,  casi  las  mismas  que  me  hacieron  ayer. 

Preg.  16. — Desques  del  primer  examen  que  hizo  Vd  de  este  docu- 
mento  y  antes  de  la  conversacion  que  tuvo  Vd  con  el  Sor  Laurencel  a 
la  cual  se  refiere.  Vd  en  su  ultima  respuesta  habia  Vd  tenido  alguna 
conversacion  con  cualquiera  persona  tocante  a  ese  documento  y  si  tuvo 
de"  Vd  los  nombres  de  todas  las  personas  con  quines  tuvo  Vd  tales  con- 
versaciones  y  diga  lo  que  Vd  les  digo  a  ellos  y  lo  que  ellos  le  digeron 
a  Vd  tocante  a  el. 

Res.  16. — Tuve  conversacion  con  Fernandez,  con  Antonio  Maria 
Pico,  con  un  tal  Santiago,  Crane  ;  Fernandez  conocia  mi  letra  y  -me 
pregunto  si  efectivamente  yo  lo  habia  escrito  y  yo  le  conteste  que  si 
que  lo  habia  escrito.  Antonio  Maria  Pico  y  Santiago  Crane  estaban  pre- 
sentes  cuando  Fernandez  me  hizo  estos  preguntos.  Despues  Don  An- 
tonio Maria  Pico  me  digo  que  iba  a  hacer  porque  yo  diera  mi  testimo- 
nio  y  yo  le  conteste  que  me  hiciera  el  favor  de  no  mes  clarme  en  eso 
porque  tenia  que  irme  pronto. 

Preg.  17. — En  cuantas  ocasiones  le  pidio  Vd  al  Padre  Real  poseci- 
on  de  la  Huerta  de  Santa  Clara. 

Res.  17. — En  dos  ocasiones. 

Preg.  18. — La  fecha  de  la  primera. 

Res.  18* — No  me  acuerdo  de  la  fecha  pero  fue  antes  que  nosotros 
en  persona  fuimos  a  pedirlo,  fue'  por  medio  de  Don  Antonio  Osio. 

Preg.  19. — Diga  Vd  las  fe'chas  lo  mejor  aue  Vd  puede  recordar ; 
cuando  daba  Vd  su  testimonio  en  favor  del  actor  en  esta  causa  parecia 
Vd  tener  una  memoria  muy  buena  para  fechas,  tenga  Vd  la  bondad 
de  ejacerlo  ahora  un  poco. 

Res.  19.-— Si  yo  me  acuerdo  lo  dire  pero  despues  de  10  o  11  anos 
es  dificil  acordarse  de  la  fecha.  Me  acuerdo  que  mande  a  Osio  la  pri- 
mera vez  pero  no  puedo  acordarme  de  la  fecha.  No  me  acuerdo  de 
la  fecha  de  la  segunda  vez,  pero  ahora  recuerdo  se  puede  saber  la  fe- 
cha por  los  Periodicos  porque  en  ellas  se  dio  cuenta  de  un  choque  que 
tuve  con  el  Padre  Real  tocante  a  la  posecion  de  la  huerta. 

Preg.  20. — Que  Periodico. 

Res.  20. — El  primer  Periodico  que  hubo  aqui  me  parece.  Me  pa- 
rece  que  el  Redactone  era  ese  hombre  muy  grande  que  llamaban  sem- 
ple  o  simple. 

Preg.  21. — La  primera  aplicacion  que  hizo  Vd  al  Padre  Real  para 
la  posecion  de  esta  huerta  fue'  para  al  sur  con  el  Genl.  Castro. 


722 

Res.  21. — Despues  que  venimos  del  sur.  Porque  cuando  nosotros 
veninios  del  sur  trajimos  los  titulos  para  la  huerta  de  Santa  Clara. 

Preg.  22. — Tiene  Vd  ahora  algun  interes  en  la  huerta  de  Santa 
Clara  bajo  el  titulo  de  que  acaba  de  hablar  o  bajo  de  cualesquiera  otro 
titulo. 

Res.  22. — Ningun  interes  tengo. 

Preg.  23. — Vendio  Vd  su  interes  en  dicha  huarta,  bajo  el  titulo  de 
que  ha  hablado  y  si  lo  vendio,  a  quien  lo  vendio,  porque  precio  y 
cuando. 

Res.  33. — Lo  vendi  a  Charley  Clayton  en  el  aiio  '49  o  '50  pero  no 
me  acuerdo  por  cuanto. 

Preg.  24. — Recuerde  Vd  si  puede  por  cuanto. 

Res.  24.— De  1200  a  1600  pesos. 

Preg.  25. — En  donde  se  escribio  y  firmo  ese  Titulo,  por  quien  fue 
escrito  y  finnado  y  en  donde  y  cuando.  Querro  decir  su  titulo  para 
la  huerta  de  Santa  Clara. 

Res.  25. — Fue  escrito  por  Juan  Castaneda  y  firmado  por  Pio  Pico 
fue  escrito  y  firmano  en  Los  Angeles.     No  se  cuando. 

Preg.  26. — Se  acuerda  Vd  de  la  fecha  de  el. 

Res.  26. — En  los  ultimos  dias  de  Junio  '46. 

Preg.  27. — Que  le  dio  Vd  al  Gobierno  por  esa  huerta. 

Res.  27. — Si  me  es  permitido  hare  una  refieccion.  Yo  he  prestado 
juramento  para  decir  la  verdad  en  la  Causa  de  Andres  CastiUero,  pero 
Ya  veo  que  me  esta  examinando  sobre  otra  causa. 

Preg.  28. — Repito  la  pregunta.  Tenga  Vd  la  bondad  de  contes- 
tarla. 

Res.  28.— Nada  le  di. 

Preg.  29. — La  huerta  fue  concedida  a  Vd  solo  6  a  Vd  eon  otros  y 
si  con  otros,  quienes  ? 

Res.  29. — Fue  concedida  a  mi  a  Juan  Castaneda  y  a  Luis  Arenas. 

Preg.  30. — Segun  los  terminos  de  la  concesion  fue  donacion  o 
venta. 

Res.  30. — Me  parece  que  fue  venta. 

Preg.  31. — Que  se  Castaneda  ni  Arenas  le  pagaron  nada  el  Gobier- 
no por  la  huerta  bajo  esa  concesion. 

Res.  31. — Creo  que  si  le  pagaron.  Segun  lo  que  ellos  me  cligeron 
le  pagaron  Reses  y  semillas  y  un  poco  dinero. 

Preg.  33. — Cuantas  Reses,  cuanta  semilla  y  cuanto  dinero  y  cuando 
lo  pagaron. 

Res.  33. — No  si  la  cantidad  ni  cuando  lo  pagaron. 

Preg.  34. — Tomaron  recibo  del  Gobierno  o  algun  otro  empleado  pub- 
lico por  lo  que  pagaron. 

Res.  34. — Si  habia  recibo. 

Preg.  35. — En  letra  de  quien  estaba  ese  recibo  y  pero  quien  estaba 
firmado. 


723 

Res.  35. — Estaba  firmado  por  Pio  Pico  el  Gobernador.  Me  parece 
que  estaba  en  letra  de  Castaiieda  pero  no  estoy  seguro. 

Preg.  36. — Que  fecha  tenia  el  recibo. 

Res.  36. — Junio  '46  creo  que  a  fines  del  mes,  no  estoy  seguro  por- 
que  lo  vi  una  vez  no  mas. 

Preg.  37. — Como  sabe  Vd  que  Castaiieda  escribio  esa  concesion. 

Res.  37. — Porque  yo  lo  vi  escribir. 

Preg.  38. — En  que  case  en  Los  Angeles  se  escribia. 

Res.  38. — En  casa  de  Luis  Arenas. 

Preg.  39. — Estuvo  Castaiieda  en  Los  Angeles  en  el  mes  de  Junio 
del  ano  1846.       * 

Res.  39. — No.     No  estaba  alii. 

Preg.  40. — Estuvo  Pio  Pico  en  Los  Angeles  en  el  mes  de  Junio  de 
ano  '46. 

Res.  40. — No  se*.     Yo  no  estuvo  alii  en  Junio  '46. 

Preg.  41. — Vd  vio  a  Pio  Pico  firmar  esa  concesion. 

Res.  41.— No. 

Preg.  42. — En  que  mes  escribio  Castaiieda  esa  concesion. 

Res.  42. — En  Julio  o  Agosto  '46. 

Preg.  43. — Es  este  individio  nombrado  Crane  con  quien  tuvo  Vd  la 
conversacion  mencionada  en  su  respuesta  No  16,  an  este  ultimo  exa- 
men,  la  misma  persona  a  quien  dijo*  V  bajo  juramento  cuando  Compa- 
nero  Vd  como  testigo  en  favor  de  los  Estados  Unidos  ante  la  comision 
de  Terrenos  en  la  cusa  de  Redmond  vs.  Clayton  reclamando  la  huerta 
de  Santa  Clara  que  Vd  habia  dicho  muchas  mentiras  ? 

Preg.  44. — Companeio  Vd  como  testigo  en  favor  de  los  Estados 
Unidos  delante  la  Comision  de  Terrenos  de  los  E.  U.  en  Diciembre  de 
1854  en  la  causa  de  J.  W.  Redmond  y  otros  reclamando  la  huerta  de 
Santa  Clara,  y  se  tomo  su  deposicion  en  esa  causa. 

Res.  44.— Si. 

Preg.  45. — Vea  Vd  la  prejunta  No  13  y  su  respuesta  a  ella  en  el 
contra  Examen  como  ee  halla  escrita  en  su  deposicion  tomada  ante  la 
comision  de  Terrenos  el  dia  28  de  Diciembre  de  1854  en  dicha  causa 
y  depositado  en  la  oficina  de  dicha  comision  la  cual  pregunta  y  res- 
puesta se  hallan  en  las  palabras  siguientes. 

Pregunta  No.  13. 

Ha  tenido  Vd  alguna  conversacion  con  Santiago  C.  Crane,  en  la 
ciudad  de  San  Francisco  tocante  al  juramento  que  hizo  Vd  el  dio  14 
de  Diciembre  de  1854  ante  esta  comision  o  tocante  en  esta  causa  y  si 
tuvo,  cuando  ocurrio  esa  conversacion  y  que  digo  Vd  tocante  al  dinero 
que  se  la  debia  pagar  a  Vd.  porque  diese  Vd  testimonio  contra  lo  que 
reclaman  los  actores  en  esta  causa. 


724 

Respuesta. 

He  tenido  conversaciones  con  el  dicho  Crane  tocante  a  el  dicho  jura- 
mento  Crane  me  propuso  que  el  daria  su  testimonio  en  esta  causa  y  me 
pregunto  cuanto  pagaria  el  Padre  Roble.  Yo  le  dige  que  no  sabia  que 
podia  ir  a  ver  el  Padre  y  arreglado  el  mismo  Crane  me  digo  que  no  el 
habia  podido  arreglado  con  el  Padro. 

Yo  y  Crane  hemos  tenido  varias  conversaciones  en  las  cuales  ambos 
hemos  hecho  falsas  representaciones  uno  a  otro  para  enganar  uno  a 
otro. 

La  conversacion  que  yo  tuve  con  Crane  tocante  al  dicho  juramento 
tuvo  lugar  en  el  St.  Francis  Hotel  en  esta  ciudad  unos  3  o  4  dias  des- 
pues  que  yo  hizo  dicho  juramento. 

Con  referencia  a  lo  que  yo  le  dige  a  Crane  tocante  al  dinero  que  yo 
debia  recibir  por  testificar  contra  lo  que  se  reclama  en  esta  causa.  Yo 
le  he  dicho  a  Crane  muchas  mentiras. 

Yea  Vd  tambien  su  respuesta  a  la  pregunta  No.  15,  en  el  contra 
examin  en  dicha  deposicion  la  cual  pregunta  y  respuesta  se  hallen  en 
las  palatras  siguientes. 

Pregunta  No.  15. 

Vd  nombro"  alguna  vez  la  suma  de  $2000  00  en  la  conversacion  que 
dice  Vd  que  tuvo  con  el  como  sumo  que  se  le  dibia  pagar  a  Vd  direc- 
tamente  o  condicionalmente  por  que  diese  Vd  testimonio  contra  lo  que 
se  reclama  en  esta  causa. 

Respuesta. 

Yo  le  he*  mencionado  a  el  11000,  $2000,  $3000  y  $4000  en  difer- 
entes  ocasiones  como  sumas  que  yo  debo  recibir  por  dar  mi  testimonio 
contra  lo  que  se  reclama  en  esta  causa.  Era  falso  pero  yo  se  lo  dige 
para  deshacomre  de  el. 

Crane  me  dijo  que  yo  habia  hecho  mal  negocio  en  ponerme  del  lado 
de  los  Padres ;  que  si  me  hubiese  puesto  al  lado  de  el  me  habia  pocu- 
rado  $4000  o  $5000  de  los  Abogados. 

Y  diga  si  se  le  hizo  a  Vd  dichas  preguntas,  y  si  esas  respuestas  se 
hicieron  a  dichas  preguntas,  y  si  el  tal  Crane  que  esta  mencionados  en 
dichas  preguntas  y  respuestas  es  el  individuo  de  ese  nombre  con  el 
cual  como  ha  dicho  Vd  en  su  respuesta  No.  16  en  el  contra  examen 
en  esta  deposicion,  converso  Vd  tocante  a  esta  peticion  de  Castro  es- 
crito  por  Vd  a  mego  del  Padre  Real. 

Res.  45. — Yo  no  soy  Abogado  y  no  se  si  debo  contestar  a  esta  pre- 
gunta, pero  me  parece  que  no  es  necesarie  hacerme  esta  pregunta  por- 


725 

que  los  archivos  son  publicos,  y  yo  estoy  aqui  para  dar  me  testimonio 
en  otra  y  diferente  causa. 

Preg.  46. — Repito  la  pregunta  y  exigo  que  Vd  la  conteste. 

Res.  46. — En  cuanta  a  Crane  es  el  inismo  de  quien  he  hablado  en 
esta  deposicion. 

Preg.  47. — En  donde  estaba  Vd  euando  el  Padre  Real  le  ensenoel 
papel  que  le  digo  que  copiase  Yd. 

Res.  47. — El  Padre  Real  no  me  enseiio  ningun  papel.  El  Padre 
Real  estaba  en  su  cuarto  y  me  estaba  dictando  con  un  papel  en  la  ma- 
no  pero  you  no  he  visto  el  papel. 

Preg.  48. — En  donde  tuvo  lugar  eso. 

Res.  48. — En  la  mision  de  Santa  Clara. 

Preg.  49. — En  que  ano. 

Res.  49. — Ya  he  dicho  varias  veces  que  no  me  acuerdo  que  afio. 

Preg.  50. — No  tiene  Yd  alguna  idea  en  que  ano  fue. 

Res.  50. — Idea  si  tengo  pero  no  tengo  seguridad. 

Preg.  51. — Que  idea  tiene  Yd  sobre  eso. 

Res.  51. — Que  fue  a  finis  de  '46  en  el  ano  '47. 

Preg.  52. — Quian  estuvo  presente  euando  el  Padre  Real  le  digo  a 
Yd  que  haciese  Yd  copia  de  ese  instrumento. 

Res.  52. — Juan  Castaiieda  y  el  que  era  llavero  de  la  mision. 

Preg.  53. — Quien  era  el  llavero  de  la  mision ;  era  Indio  oMexicano 
"  Esta  vivo. 

Res.  53. — Era  un  tal  Gutierrez.  No  se  si  era  Mexicano  o  Espanol 
no  se  si  estava  vivo. 

Preg.  54. — Sabe  Yd  en  donde  esta. 

Res.  54.— No. 

Preg.  55. — En  letra  de  quien  estaba  en  instrumento  que  el  Padre 
Real  le  dijo  a  Yd  que  copiase. 

Res.  55. — Ya  he  dicho  que  no  lo  he  visto. 

Preg.  bQ. — Como  sabe  Yd  que  el  Padre  Real  tenia  en  sus  manos 
un  instrumento  escrito  si  Yd  no  lo  vio. 

Res.  56. — Porque  vi  un  papel  en  sus  manos  y  el  me  dictaba. 

Preg.  57. — Le  pregunto  Yd  al  Padre  si  el  papel  que  el  tenia  en  las 
manos  estaba  firmado  por  alguno. 

Res.  57  —No. 

Preg.  58. — Le  pregunto  Yd  al  Padre  porque  en  el  mes  de  Diciem- 
bre  del  ano  '46  o  a  principio  del  ano  '47  el  le  decia  a  Yd  que  copiase 
un  papel  la  fecha  del  cual  era  27  de  Junio  '46. 

Res.  58. — No  ;  porque  como  era  negocio  que  no  me  importaba  yo 
escribia  lo  que  me  decia. 

Preg.  59. — Quien  estuvo  presente  euando  le  pedio  Yd  al  Padre 
Real  posesion  de  la  huerta. 

Res.  59. — Castaiieda  yo  y  el  Padre. 

Preg.  60. — Nadie  mas. 


726 

Res.  60. — Cuando  le  hablamos  sobre  ese  negocio  no  habia  nadie 
mas. 

Preg.  61. — Que  derecho  tenia  Vd  para  pedir  al  Padre  Real  pose- 
cion  de  la  huerta  de  Santa  Clara  que  razon  le  dio  Vd  a  el  por  haber  lo 
pedido. 

Res.  61. — El  titulo  que  le  presentamos. 

Preg.  62. — Le  ensenaron  Vds  su  titulo  cuando  le  pidieron  la  huerta. 

Res.  62. — Una  copia  le  ensenamos  porque  Don  Antonio  Osio  habia 
pedido  el  original. 

Preg.  63. — En  donde  esta  Don  Antonio  Osio. 

Res.  63. — En  la  baja  California. 

Preg.  64. — La  copia  que  Yds  le  enseiiaron  fue  copia  exacta  de  la 
original. 

Res.  64.— Si. 

Preg.  65. — Tuvo  Vd  algun  choque  con  el  Padre  Real  tocante  a  ese 
asiento. 

Res.  65.— Si. 

Preg.  66. — Fue  despues  o  antes  que  Vd  hizo  esta  copia  que  tuvo 
Vd  el  choque  con  el. 

Res.  66. — Despues. 

Preg.  67. — Cuando  Vd  pedio  la  posecion  al  Padre  Real  le  dijo  Vd 
a  el  que  anique  su  titulo  de  Vd  tenia  fecha  de  fines  de         Junio 

del  ano  '46  no  se  habia  hecho  en  realidad  hasta  fines  de  Julio  o  prin- 
cipio  de  Agosto  de  ese  ano  que  Vd  habia  visto  a  Castaneda  escribir  el 
documento  de  titulo  en  Los  Angeles  a  fines  de  Julio  o  a  principio  de 
Agosto  1846  despues  de  su  llegada  alii  en  la  espedicion  del  Genl.  Jose' 
Castro,  que  no  se  empezo  hasta  el  11  o  12  de  Julio  1846  ? 

Res.  67. — No  le  dige  tal  cosa  porque  yo  ignoraba  que  tuniese  ese 
defecto. 

Preg.  68. — De  quo  defecto  habia  Vd. 

Res.  68. — De  estar  ante  fechado. 

Preg.  69. — Descubrio  Vd  el  defecto  de  que  estaba  ante  fechado, 
antes  de  vender  Vd  su  interes  en  ese  titulo  o  despues. 

Res.  69. — Despues. 

Preg.  70. — Cuando  vio  Vd  estos  documentos  en  compania  del  Sor 
Laurencel  y  reconocio  Vd  a  primera  vista  su  letra  de  Vd  en  el  Docu- 
mento que  dice  Vd  que  copio  para  el  Padre  Real  y  tambien  la  letra  de 
Castaneda  en  la  primera  representacion  de  Castillero  porque  dijo  Vd 
que  reconocia  solamente  la  letra  de  Castaneda  porque  no  dijo  Vd  al 
Sor  Laurencel  y  a  los  otros  Sefiores  que  estuvieron  presentes  cuando 
Vd  estuvo  examinando  estos  documentos  que  tambien  reconocia  Vd  su 
propria  letra  ;  Se  estaba  Vd  reservando  para  venderse  a  el  que  le  ha- 
via  la  mejor  oferta ;  ha  prometido  el  Sor  Laurencel  pagarle  a  Vd  di- 
recta  o  indirectamente,  algo  por  su  testimonio  en  esta  causa  en  favor 
de  los  E.  U.  y  si  ha  prometido  cuanto  ? 


727 

Res.  70. — La  primera  vez  que  vimos  los  documentos  no  quize  decir 
que  era  me  letra  porque  me  repugna  dar  testimonio  y  si  no  hubiera 
sido,  por  undo  de  los  testigos  que  conocio  mi  letra  ya  nunca  hubiera 
dicho  que  era  mia.  Tocante  al  insulto  que  me  hace  de  que  me  estaba 
reservando  el  mejor  postor  no  se  que  motivo  tiene  para  dicirlo.  El  Sor 
Laurencel  quejandome  yo  con  el  de  lo  trampa  que  habian  puesto  y  que 
no  tenia  modo  de  cubrio  mis  gastos  con  lo  que  el  Gobierno  da  para 
gastos,  el  me  prometio  que  hiciera  mi  cuenta,  y  lo  que  fataria  despues 
de  pagado  por  el  Gobierno  el  lo  cubriria. 

Preg.  71. —  Existen  relaciones  amistosas  entre  Vd  y  Santiago  Crane 
de  quien  ha  hablado  Vd  se  ha  visto  Vd  con  el  muchas  veses  ultima- 
mente.     En  donde  vive  el.     Ha  estado  el  en  San  Francisco  en  el  mes 


to. 

Res.  71. — Somos  coviedos  de  mucho  tiempo  pero  amistad  estruba 
no  tenemos,  casi  todos  los  dias  lo  veo.  El  tiene  su  resedencia  en  San 
Rafael  creo  que  ha  estado  el.aqui  en  el  mes  pasado. 

Preg.  72. — Cuando  vio  Vd  primero  este  documento  que  copia,  como 
dice  Vd  que  tiene  idea  que  hizo,  a  fines  del  ano  '46  o  en  el  ano  '47 
quiero  decir,  cuando  Vd  lo  examino  primero  a  mego  del  Sor  Lauren- 
cel viendolo  firmado  por  Jose'  Castro,  viendo  sobre  el  un  decreto  en  el 
margen  fue  firmado  por  Pacheco  con  su  rubrica  y  su  nombre  y  viendo 
que  este  papel  tiene  fecha  Junio  27  del  ano  1846  consideraba  Vd  que 
era  honrado  suprimir  el  conocimiento  de  su  letra  en  este  papel  y  todo 
lo  demas  que  Vd  sabia  tocante  a  el  que  tendria  tendencia  a  probar  que 
era  falso  y  ante  fechado  con  el  objeto  de  entar  el  trabajo  que  le  causa- 
ria  el  ser  testigo  en  esta  causa  en  favor  de  los  E.  U. 

Res.  72. — La  primera  vez  que  yo  lo  vi  no  vi  la  fecha.  La  segunda 
vez  fue  cuando  vi  la  fecha. 

Preg.  73. — Cuantos  dias  se  pasaron  entre  la  primera  y  segunda  vez 
que  Vd  examino  este  documento. 

Res.  73. — Como  15  dias  mas  o  menos. 

Preg.  74. — A  quien  dijo  Vd  primero  que  este  documento  estaba  an- 
tefechada. 

Res.  74. — A  nadie  he*  dicho  que  esta  antefechado. 

Preg.  75. — A  quien  dijo  Vd  primero  que  este  documento  fue  escrito 
por  Vd  algun  tiempo  despues  de  la  fecha  que  esta  puesto  en  el  mismo 
documento. 

Res.  75. — A  nadie  he  dicho  semejante  cosa. 

Preg.  76. — Cuando  examino  Vd  primero  este  documento  lo  leyo  ? 

Res.  76.— No. 

Preg.  77. — Vio  Vd  entonces  todo  el  documento  vio  Vd  la  forma 
que  tenia. 

Res.  77. — No.  Luego  no  reconosi  mi  letra  me  retire  para  que  no 
me  hicieran  preguntas. 


728 

Preg.  78. — No  volvio  Vd  la  pagina  o  estuvo  Yd  satisfecho  con  una 
mirada  a  la  priraera  pagina. 

Res.  78. — No.     Luego  que  vi  mi  letra  me  retire. 

Preg.  79. — Vd  ha  dicho  que  habia  venido  para  examinar  el  docu- 
mento  con  el  Sor  Laurencel  en  esa  ocasion  ;  porque  no  lo  examino 
Vd ;  porque  no  lo  examino  suficiente  para  saber  el  contenido  de  el ; 
porque  no  examino  Vd  las  firmas ;  porque  no  miro  Vd  al  decreto  en  el 
margen  j  a  la  firma  de  el ;  como  no  miro  Vd  a  la  fecha  si  Vd  se  tomo 
el  trabajo  de  venir  hasta  aqui  para  examinar  ese  documento  ;  no  es  al 
yo  estrano  que  Vd  se  contento  con  una  mirada  a  la  primera  pagina. 
Nadie  le  digo  a  Vd  que  lo  examinase  con  mas  cuidado  o  mas  a  me- 
nudo. 

Res.  79. — Yo  no  he  venido  aqui  espresamente  a  examinar  el  papel, 
cerca  del  cuarto  del  Sor  Delia  Torre  el  Sor  Laurencel  nos  convidaron 
a  mi  j  a  Cambuston  para  ver  si  conosiamos  las  letras  de  un  documento 
y  la  primera  que  nos  enseno  fue  la  de  Castaneda  y  despues  volvieron 
a  la  primera  a  ver  si  la  conocimos  entonces  se  quedaron  todos  alii  y  yo 
luego  que  vi  mi  letra  me  fue  ;  no  quize  que  me  hicieran  mas  prejuntas 
nadie  me  dijo  que  lo  examinase  mas  a  menudo. 

Preg.  80. — El  caballero  que  le  invito  Vd  adentro  del  cuarto  para 
examinar  las  letras,  como  Vd  ha  dicho  no  le  pregunto  a  Vd  de  quien 
creia  Vd  que  eran  las  letras  de  esos  documentos. 

Res.  80. — Me  presento  primero  las  de  Castaneda  y  yo  no  di  lugar 
a  mas. 

Preg.  81. — Repite  la  pregunta  No.  45.  Tengo  Vd  la  bondad  de 
contestar  a  ella  plenamente. 

Res.  81. — Tocante  a  las  mencionadas  preguntas  y  respuesta  creo 
que  son  las  preguntas  que  me  hizieron  y  las  respuestas  que  yo  di  a  no 
ser  algun  equivoco  o  mala  interpretacion  porque  no  puedo  acordarme 
exactamente  de  ellas  despues  de  tanto  tiempo.  Santiago  Crane  es  el 
mismo  a  quien  me  reficio  en  mi  dicha  respuesta  No.  16. 

Preg.  82. — La  deposicion  en  la  cual  dio  Vd  esas  respuestas  a  esas 
preguntas  fue  hecha  bajo  juramento. 

Res.  82.— Si. 

Preg.  83. — Segun  lo  que  Vd  ahora  recuerda  de  la  materia  a  que  se 
refieren  sus  respuestas  a  las  dichas  preguntas  tiene  Vd  alguna  causa  o 
razon  para  dudar  que  sus  respuestas  a  las  dichas  preguntas  como  las 
dio  Vd  cuando  se  tomo  esa  deposicion  estan  correctamente  puestas  co- 
mo se  hallan  escritas  en  la  dicha  pregunta  No.  45. 

Res.  83. — Puede  ser  que  sea  exacta  esa  deposicion  pero  no  me  acu- 
erdo  exactamente  de  las  respuestas  que  di  entonces. 

Preg.  84. — En  su  respuesta  No.  80  en  su  contra  examen  dice  Yd 
el  Sor  Laurencel  le  enseno  a  Vd  primero  el  Documento  que  llaman 
"  The  Houghton  Document,' '  y  que  le  enseno  la  letra  de  Castaneda 
en  el  dicho  Document  y  que  no  dio  Vd  lugar  a  mas  no  fue  el  despues 


729 

a  buscarle  a  Vd  y  le  pregunto  que  si  la  peticion  de  Castro  estaba  en 
su  letra  de  Vd  ? 

Res.  84.— No. 

Preg.  85. — Tuvo  el  Sor  Laurencel  alguna  conversacion  con  Yd  to- 
cante  a  esos  papeles  antes  de  haberse  Vd  ido  a  San  Jose*  como  digo  Vd 
que  hizo. 

Res.  85.— No. 

Preg.  86. — Tuvo  Vd  alguna  conversacion  con  cualesquiera  persona 
despues  que  Vd  los  vio  primero  y  antes  de  irse  Vd  a  San  Jose*,  y  si 
tuvo  con  quien. 

Res.  86. — Tuve  conversacion  con  Fernandez  y  con  Antonio  Maria 
Pico. 

Preg.  87. — No  tuvo  Vd  conversacion  con  el  Sor  Crane  ? 

Res.  87. — Creo  que  no  porque  el  no  estuvo  aqui  en  esos  dias. 

Preg.  88. — Dice  Vd  que  durante  ese  intervalo  no  tuvo  Vd  ninguna 
conversacion  con  el  Sor  Laurencel.  No  tuvo  Vd  alguna  conversacion 
con  alguno  que  le  envio  Vd  el  Sor  Laurencel,  o  quien  sospechaba  Vd 
que  le  fue  enviado  a  Vd  por  el  Sor  Laurencel  tocante  a  eso. 

Res.  88. — No.  No  tuve  conversacion  en  ese  intervalo  con  nadie 
enviado  por  el  Sor  Laurencel  ni  con  el  mismo. 

Preg.  89. — Durante  su  visita  a  San  Jose*  se  encontro  Vd  con  San- 
tiago Alexandro  Forbes. 

Res.  89.— No. 

Preg.  90. — Quiero  decir  si  vio  Vd  al  Sor  Forbes,  entre  el  tiempo 
en  que  salio  y  el  tiempo  en  que  volvio  Vd  a  San  Francisco  en  la  oca- 
sion  de  esa  visita  y  no  solamenti  si  lo  vio  Vd  en  San  Jose*. 

Res.  90. — No  lo  vi  desde  que  sali  de  San  Francisco  hasta  que 
volvi. 

Preg.  91. — Durante  ese  intervalo  converso  Vd  con  alguna  persona 
tocante  a  estos  papeles  o  a  las  cosas  a  que  ellos  se  lefieren  ? 

Res.  91. — Si.  En  el  vapor  platique  con  Fernandez,  que  iba  abordo 
del  vapor,  en  el  camino  para  San  Jose.  No  me  acuerdo  haber  hablado 
con  nadie' .mas. 

Preg.  92. — Cuando  Vd  volvio  a  San  Francisco  con  quien  converso 
Vd  primero  tocante  a  esos  papeles  o  a  las  cosas  a  que  ellas  refieren. 

Res.  92. — El  Sor  Laurencel  fue  el  primero  con  quien  liable. 

Preg.  93. — Cuantos  dias  se  pasaron  entre  la  primera  vez  que  exa- 
mino  Vd  estos  papeles  y  su  vuelta  de  San  Jose*. 

Res.  93. — Ocho  o  diez  dias  mas  o  menos. 

Preg.  94. — Vd  le  fue  a  buscar  al  Sor  Laurencel  o  el  le*  fue*  a  buscar 
a  Vd  para  la  conversacion  que  tuvo  Vd  con  el  cuando  estuvo  Vd  de 
vuelta  de  San  Jose. 

Res.  94. — Nos  encontramos  en  la  calle  de  Montgomery. 

Preg.  95. — Se  encontraron  Vds  en  conformidad  con  arreglo  anterior 
que  tuvieron  con  ese  fin. 
54 


730 

Res.  95.— No, 

Preg.  96. — Entre  el  tiempo  que  examino  Vd  por  primera  vez  este 
documento  y  el  tiempo  en  que  encontro  Vd  al  Sor  Laurencel  en  la 
calle  de  Montgomery  como  esta  dicho  en  su  penultima  respuesta  habia 
Vd  recibido  del  Sor  Laurencel  o  de  alguna  otra  persona  alguna  comu- 
nicacion  por  escrito  tocante  a  este  documento  a"  las  cosas  a  las  cuales 
el  se  refiere. 

Res.  97. — No.     No  he  recibido  ninguna  comunicacion. 

Preg.  98.  .Que  le  digo  el  Sor  Laurencel  a  Vd  cuando  lo  encontro 
Vd  en  la  calle  de  Montgomery. 

Res.  98. — Entonces  fue  cuando  el  me  convido  que  viniese  a  ver  los 
papeles  el  dia  siguiente. 

Preg.  99. — Eso  fue  todo  lo  el  le  digo  a  Vd  en  esa  ocasion. 

Res.  99. — Despues  de  saludarnos  fue  todo  lo  que  hablamos. 

Preg.  100. — Esta  Vd  seguroque  no  le  dijo  mas  Vd  a  el  en  esa  oca- 
sion ni  el  a  Vd. 

Res.  100. — Si  estoy  seguro. 

Preg.  101. — Con  quien  tuvo  Vd  la  primera  conversacion  despues  de 
esta  tocante  a  eso. 

Res.  101. — Despues  de  ese  conversacion  no  recuerdo  haber  conver- 
sado  con  nadie  sobre  eso. 

Preg.  102. — Ha  dicho  Vd  que  el  Sor  Laurencel  le  encontro  a  Vd 
en  el  corredor  de  esta  casa  y  que  le  convido  adentro  de  este  cuarto 
para  examinar  los  papeles  en  el  documento  que  llaman  "  The  Hough- 
ton Document,' '  que  en  ese  examen  reconosio  Vd  que  ese  instrumento 
en  ese  documento  estaba  en  la  letra  de  Juan  Castaiieda  y  que  tambien 
reconosio  Vd  que  la  peticion  de  Castro  estaba  en  su  letra  de  Vd  que 
Vd  le  dijo  el  Sor  Laurencel  que  reconosia  Vd  solamente  de  letra  de 
Castaneda  y  que  si  retiro  de  el  principitamente  para  no  darle  lugar  a 
que  le  preguntase  el  a  Vd  de  quien  era  la  letra  de  la  peticion  de  Cas- 
tro, que  no  tuvo  Vd  ninguna  conversacion  ni  comunicacion  con  el  Sor 
Laurencel  ni  con  ningun  agente  de  el  directa  ni  indirectamente  tocante 
a  esos  documentos  ni  tocante  a  las  cosas  a  que  ellos  se  refieren  hasta 
que  se  encontraron  en  la  calle  de  Montgomery  como  Vd  ha  dicho.  No 
es  esto  asi  ? 

Res.  102.— Si. 

Preg.  103. — Ha  dicho  Vd  que  despues  de  su  conversacion  con  el 
Sor  Laurencel  en  la  calle  de  Montgomery  se  acuerda  haber  tenido  con- 
versacion alguna  con  cuales  quiera  persona  tocante  a  estos  documentos 
o  a  las  cosas  a  que  ellos  se  refieren.     No  es  esto  asi. 

Res.  103.— Si. 

Preg.  104. — Ha  dicho  Vd  que  su  conversacion  con  el  Sor  Lauren- 
cel en  la  calle  de  Montgomery  no  fue  mas  que  saludarsc  y  el  convi- 
darle  a  Vd  que  viniese  el  dia  siguiente  a  examinar  estos  papeles.  Que 
le  contesto  Vd  al  Sor  Laurencel. 


731 

Res.  104. — Ques  vendria  a  verlos. 

Preg.  105. — Vino  Vd  y  cuando? 

Res.  105. — Vine  el  dia  siguiente. 

Preg.  106. — De  donde  vino  Vd  y  con  quien. 

Res.  106. — Vine  del  California  Hotel  me  parece  que  vine  acompa- 
nado  con  Crane. 

Preg.  107. — Que  Crane. 

Res.  107. — Santiago  Crane. 

Preg.  108. — Crane  le  acompaiiio  a  Vd  hasta  el  cuarto  que  esta 
contigno  a  este  y  el  tambien  examino  esos  documentos. 

Res.  108. — No  vino  el  al  cuarto  ni  examino  los  documentos. 

Preg.  109. — En  donde  lo  dejo  Vd  a  Crane  cuando  entro  Vd  al  cuar- 
to para  examinar  los  documentos.     Conteste  Vd  con  precision. 

Res.  109. — No  recuerdo  si  lo  deje  en  la  puesta  de  esta  casa  abajo  o 
en  la  esquina  de  la  calle; 

Preg.  110. — A  que  distancia  esta  la  esquina  de  la  calle  de  la  puer- 
ta  de  esta  casa. 

Res.  110. — Puede  haber  como  30  o  40  varas. 

Preg.  111. — Bien  pues  Vd  entro  para  examinar  los  papeles  ;  diga 
todo  lo  que  se  hizo  y  se  dijo  en  esa  ocasion  de  ese  examen. 

Res.  111. — Ya  he  contestado  eso. 

Preg.  112. — No  estoy  satisfecho  con  su  respuesta,  repito  la  pregun- 
ta,  conteste  la  Vd. 

Res.  112. — Entre  yo,  y  estaba  el  Sor  Randolph  el  Sor  Laurencely 
creo  que  el  Sor  que  trajo  el  papel  de  San  Jose.  El  Sor  Randolph  le 
pidio  a  Sor este  ultimo  los  papeles  y  se  las  dio  al  Sor  Lauren- 
eel  y  entonces  el  me  las  enseno  uno  por  uno  y  me  pregunto  si  efectiva- 
mente  era  mi  letra  y  despues  de  varias  preguntas  que  me  hizo  signio 
ensenandome  el  documento  escrito  por  Castaneda  y  otra  peticion  que 
esta  hecha  alii  por  Castillero  y  me  pregunto  si  conosia  la  letra  y  firma 
de  Castillero  y  despues  si  conosia  la  del  documento  de  posesion,  con- 
teste a  las  preguntas  que  me  hizo  y  cuando  vi  que  no  me  preguntaba 
mas  trate  de  espedirme.     Eso  fue'  todo  lo  que  paso. 

Preg.  113. — Dice  Vd  que  despues  de  haberle  preguntado  a  Vd  si 
cierto  papel  estaba  efectivamente  en  su  letra  de  Vd,  el  Sor  Laurencel 
le  hizo  varias  otras  preguntas,  que  le  contesto.  Vd  cuando  el  le  pre- 
gunto si  ese  documento  estaba  en  su  letra,  y  cuales  fueron  las  varias 
otras  preguntas  que  le  hizo  el  Sor  Laurencel  a  Vd. 

Res.  113. — Le  conteste  que  era  mi  letra  efectivamente.  Me  pre- 
gunto cuando  lo  habia  escrito,  adonde  quenes  estaba  presentes,  y  vari- 
as otras  preguntas  que  no  recuerdo. 

Preg.  114. — Adonde  fue  Vd  cuando  salio  del  cuarto. 

Res.  114. — Me  parece  que  fui  a  tomar  cafe*  en  la  calle  de  Clay. 

Fui  solo. 

Preg.  115. — No  le  aguardo  Crane  a  Vd. 


732 

Res.  115.— No. 

Preg.  116. — Cuando  lo  volvio  Vd  a  ver  a  Crane. 

Res.  116. — La  noche  del  dia  siguiente. 

Preg.  117. — Esta  Yd  seguro  que  no  lo  vio  en  el  inter. 

Res.  117. — Si  estoy.  Porque  lo  buscaba  para  que  me  tradesjera  el 
supoena. 

Preg.  118. — Cuando  Yd  y  Crane  venieron  juntos  a  esta  casa  en  su 
ultima  visita  de  examen  tuvo  Yd  alguna  conversacion  con  el  tocante  al 
objeto  de  su  visita. 

Res.  118. — Le  dije  que  venia  a  ver  los  papeles  es  toda  la  conversa- 
cion que  tuve  con  el. 

Preg.  119. — Le  dijo  Yd  a  el  que  papeles  venia  Yd  a  ver. 

Res.  119.— Si. 

Preg.  120.— Que  dijo  el. 

Ros.  120. — Me  dijo  que  si  venicia  yo  a  ver  los  mismos  que  habia 
visto  primero. 

Preg.  121. — Que  le  dijo  Yd  a  el. 

Res.  121. — Que  venia  a  ver  los  mismos  papeles. 

Preg.  122. — Crane  le  hizo  a  Yd  algunas  preguntas  tocante  a  esos 
papeles  alguna  vez ;  antes  o  despues  de  esa  ocasion. 

Res.  122. — Cuando  el  oyo  la  conversacion  que  yo  tenia  con  Fernan- 
dez me  pregunto  si  era  de  veros  mi  letra  y  yo  le  conteste  que  parecia 
que  si. 

Preg.  123. — Nunca  despues  tuvo  Yd  alguna  conversacion  con 
Crane. 

Res.  123. — Tocante  a  los  papeles  no  tuve  ninguna. 

Preg.  124. — Yd  y  Crane  tuvieron  alguna  vez  alguna  conversacion 
tocante  al  Sor  Laurencel  ? 

Res.  124. — Hemos  tenido  varias. 

Preg.  125. — Los  tuvieron  Yds  en  el  tiempo  que  Yd  examino  estos 
documentos  o  despues  de  eso. 

Res.  125. — Despues  de  tener  la  subpoena  hemos  platicado  bastante 
nunca  antes  tocante  a  el. 

Preg.  126. — Le  dijo  Crane  a  Yd  que  el  habia  conversado  con  el 
Sor  Laurencel  tocante  a  estos  papeles  o  a  esto  de  que  se  trato. 

Res.  126.— No. 

Preg.  127. — Este  hombre  Crane  dio  alguna  vez  su  deposicion  en  la 
causa  de  Redmond,  Clayton  y  otras  para  la  huerta  de  Santa  Clara  an- 
te la  Comision  de  Terrenos  de  los  E.  U. 

Res.  127.— No  se. 

Preg.  128. — Se  acuerda  Yd  haber  hecho  juramente  alguna  en  algun 
pleito  que  no  creivia  Yd  a  Santiago  Crane  bajo  juramento. 

Res.  128. — Me  acuerdo  haber  jurado  que  no  creiria  a  el  en  el  testi- 
monio  que  habia  dado  en  ese  asunto  o  una  cosa  asi. 


733 

Preg.  129. — En  donde  estaba  Vd  en  el  mes  de  Mayo  del  ano  '46 
diga  todas  los  lugares  en  donde  estaba. 

Res.  129. — No  puedo  decir  el  lugar  fixo  en  donde  estaba. 

Preg.  130. — En  donde  estuvo  Vd  en  el  mes  de  Junio  del  aiio  '46 
diga  todos  los  lugares  en  donde  estuvo.  ** 

Res.  130. — Aqui  en  San  Francisco  ;  en  Santa  Clara,  y  en  la  Con- 
tra Costa. 

Preg.  131. — En  donde  tenia  el  Genl.  Castro  su  cuartel  General  en 
el  mes  de  Junio  del  ano  '46. 

Res.  131. — En  Santa  Clara. 

Preg.  132. — Cuando  volvkrVd  de  Los  Angeles  a  Monterey  cuantos 
dias  estuvo  Yd  en  el  carmino. 

Res.  132. — No  puedo  acordarme  pero  tengo  idea  que  puse  unos  10 
o  12  dias. 

Preg.  133. — Cuantos  dias  estuvo  Vd  en  el  camino  de  los  llanos  de 
Monterey  a  Los  Angeles  cuando  fue  Vd  en  la  espedicion  de  Castro. 

Res.  133. — Estuvimos  creo  que  como  10  o  12  dias  tambien. 

Preg.  134. — Cuantos  dias  estuvo  Vd  en  Los  Angeles. 

Res.  134. — No  me  acuerdo  pero  se  que  sali  de  alii  la  noche  antes 
que  pusieron  la  bandera  Americana  ali.  Eso  fue  cuando  lo  tomo  el 
Comodore  Stockton  la  primera  vez. 

Preg.  135. — Quien  vino  con  Vd  de  Los  Angeles. 

Res.  135. — Varios  me  acuerdo  de  Jose*  Fernandez,  un  tal  Chaboya ; 
Pedro  No.  Antonio  Maria  Pico  (Castaneda  no  vino)  Bernadino  Soto, 
Lazaro  Soto,  y  no  me  acuerdo  de  mas,  aunque  habian  mas. 

Preg.  136. — Cuanto  tiempo  despues  de  su  llegada  de  Vd  a  Monte- 
rey fue  cuando  llego  alii  Juan  Castaneda. 

Res.  136. — Tres  o  cuatro  meses  ;  me  parece  pero  no  estoy  seguro. 

Preg.  137. — Dice  Vd  que  los  diavios  hablaron  de  un  choque  que 
tuvo  Vd  con  el  Padre  Real  tocante  a  esta  huerta.  Sabe  Vd  lo  que 
dijeron  los  diavos  sobre  eso  pero  primero  diga  si  puede  de  que  natural- 
eza  era  ese  choque. 

Res.  137. — Fu6*  sobre  una  carta  que  yo  le  escribi  el  Padre  Real. 
No  recuerdo  lo  que  dijeron  los  diavos. 

Preg.  138. — El  Padre  Real  contesto  a  esa  carta. 

Res.  138. — Me  parece  que  si. 

Preg.  139. — En  donde  rue*  escrito  su  carta  de  Vd  al  Padre  Real. 

Res.  139. — En  Monterey. 

Preg.  140. — Esa  carta  fue*  escrita  antes  o  despues  que  Vd  escribio 
la  peticion  de  Castro. 

Res.  140. — Me  parece  que  fue*  escrita  despues.  No  puedo  recor- 
dar  cuanto  tiempo  despues  ;  me  parece  que  fue  poco  tiempo  despues. 

Preg.  141. — Fue  un  mes  despues. 

Res.  141. — No  puedo  hacer  memoria. 

Preg.  142. — Cuanto  tiempo  despues  de  su  vuelta  de  Vd  de  Santa 


734 

Clara  a  Monterey  fiie*  cuando  Yd  le  escribio  esta  carta  al  Padre  Real. 

Res.  142. — No  puedo  hacer  memoria. 

Preg.  143. — Su  titulo  de  Vd  para  la  huerta  tiene  fecha  del  dia  30 
de  Junio  del  ano  '46  porque  permitio  Vd  que  tanto  tiempo  se  pasara 
entre  la  fecha  de  su  titulo  y  su  pedimiento  de  la  huerta. 

Res.  143. — Porque  cuando  venimos  de  Los  Angeles  yo  estuvecomo 
prisionero  en  Monterey.  No  podia  salir  de  alii ;  tambien  yo  no  tenia 
los  titulos  los  tenia  Castaneda. 

Preg.  144. — Cuanto  tiempo  despues  que  Vd  recibio  sus  titulos  de 
Castanedas  fue  cuando  Vd  pidio  posesion  de  la  huerta  que  tuvo  por 
resultado  el  choque  de  que  ha  hablado-Vd. 

Res.  144. — Poco  tiempo  despues  que  llego  Castaneda  y  un  dia  que 
supimos  que  Don  Antonio  Osio  venia  a  Santa  Clara  mandamos  el  titulo 
con  el  que  para  que  solicitara  en  nuestro  nombre  la  posesion  el  Padre 
nos  contesto  cuando  volvio  Osio  despues  de  algun  tiempo  que  no  podia 
damos  posesion  por  que  alegaba  tener  mi  titulo  de  los  Indios  y  Don 
Antonio  Osio  nos  digo  que  habia  perdido  nuestro  titulo  y  poco  tiempo 
despues  de  esto  supimos  que  el  Padre  Real  le  habia  dado  posesion  a 
Osio  de  la  huerta  bajo  un  titulo  segun  supimos  despues  ;  fabricado  por 
el  Padre  Real,  en  una  de  las  firmas  en  bianco  que  le  habia  dejado  el 
Genl.  Castro  ;  ese  fue  el  origin  de  nuestro  choque  ;  algun  tiempo  des- 
pues que  mandamos  el  titulo  con  Osio  fue  cuando  tuve  el  choque  con 
el  Padre  de  que  hablaron  los  diarios.  No  puedo  hacer  memoria  cuanto 
tiempo  despues  fue. 

Preg.  145. — Cuanto  tiempo  despues  que  Vd  le  confio  a  Osio  este 
encargo  fue  cuando  Vd  supo  que  el  Padre  Real  habia  puesto  a  Osio  en 
posesion  de  la  huerta  bajo  el  titulo  de  que  ha  hablado  Vd. 

Res.  145. — No  recuerdo  ;  pero  mi  contestacion  en  los  periodicos  ha 
de  decir  algu  de  eso. 

Preg.  146. — Fue  antes  o  despues  de  la  visita  que  hizo  Vd  personal- 
mente  a  Santa  Clara  para  hacer  la  demanda  que  tuvo  por  resultado  la 
correspondencia  que.  fue  publicado  en  los  diarios  como  ha  dicho  Vd. 

Res.  146. — Fud  despues  de  esa  visita. 

Preg.  147. — Vea  Vd  el  documento  que  se  le  enseiia  a  Vd,  que  pre- 
tende  ser  una  concesion  de  Pio  Pico  a  Benito  Dias,  de  un  pedazo  de 
tierra  conocido  bajo  el  nombre  de  Punto  de  Lobos  situado  en  el  Puerto 
de  San  Francisco,  el  cual  papel  recive  de  los  archivos  del  Surveyor 
General  of  the  State  of  California,  por  medio  de  un  empleado  en  dicha 
oficina  siendo  parte  de  los  archivos  de  la  Comision  de  Terrenos  de  los 
E.  U.  existiendo  en  esa  oficina  y  Rotulado  del  modo  siguiente  No. 
515  :  Joseph  C.  Palmer  et  als.  Punto  de  Lobos,  Doc.  H.  I.  T.  No.  1 
annexed  to  dep  of  Benito  Dias  taken  before  Com.  Harry  I.  Thornton. 
Filed  in  office  April  2d,  1853.  Geo.  Fisher,  Sec'y.  A.  No.  1,  G. 
T.  B.  attached  to  deposition  of  Pio  Pico  July  5,  1854,  taken  before 
Commr.  G.  Thompson  Burrill.    Y  diga  si  sabe  de  quien  es  la  letra  del 


735 

dicho  documento  si  conose  las  firmas  que  estan  en  el  j  si  dichas  Armas 
son  verdaderas. 

Res.  147. — La  letra  es  mia  y  las  firmas  segun  mi  conocimiento  son 
buenas. 

Preg.  148. — Es  este  un  documento  verdadero  y  fue'  hecho  en  el 
tiempo  que  esta  fechado. 

Res.  148. — Ya  he  dado  mi  testimonio  sobre  eso. 

Preg.  149. — En  ese  documento  encuentra  las  palabras  siguientes  ; 
"  Dado  en  la  ciudad  de  Los  Angeles  a  veinte  y  cinco  de  Junio  de  mil 
ochocientos  cuarenta  y  seis,  en  este  papel  comun  por  falta  del  sellado." 
No  estan  estas  palabras  en  su  letra  de  Vd  y  no  fueron  escritos  por  Vd 
al  mismo  tiempo  que  escribio  Yd  lo  demas  del  cuerpo  del  instrumento. 

Res.  149.— Si. 

Preg.  150. — Ha  dicho  Yd  en  esta  deposicion  varias  veces,  en  res- 
puesta  a  las  preguntas  que  se  le  han  hecho  a  Yd  que  en  el  mes  de 
Junio  del  aiio  1846,  estuvo  Yd  en  Santa  Clara  y  Contra  Costa  y  no 
en  Los  Angeles.  Como  puede  ser  eso  viendo  que  las  palabras  toma- 
das  de  su  concesion  en  la  pregunta  anterior  pretenden  haber  sido  escri- 
tos en  la  ciudad  de  Los  Angeles  en  el  dia  25  de  Junio  del  ano  1846. 

Res.  150. — Ya  he'  dicho  en  estos  deposiciones  que  hs  dado  porque 
fue*  fechado  ese  documento  en  Los  Angeles  habiendolo  escrito  en  San 
Francisco. 

Preg.  151. — Escribio  Yd  ese  documento  en  San  Francisco. 

Res.  151.— Si. 

Preg.  152. — Cuando. 

Res.  152. — No  me  acuerdo. 

Preg.  153. — El  documento  esta  fechado  el  dia  25  de  Junio  del  ano 
'46,  no  dice  el  documento  la  verdad  en  ese  particular. 

Res.  153. — No  se  si  dira  la  verdad  ;  segun  lo  que  dice  mi  testimo- 
nia  que  ya  he  dado  en  la  causa  de  este  titulo  yo  pienso  que  dira  la 
verdad. 

Preg.  154. — Este  titulo  fue'  escrito  por  Yd  en  Los  Angeles  el  dia 
25  de  Junio  del  auo  1846  ? 

Res.  154.— No. 

Preg.  155. — En  donde  fue  escrito  y  cuando. 

Res.  155. — Fue*  escrito  en  San  Francisco  como  ya  he  dicho,  en  el 
mes  de  Junio  del  ailo  '46  ;  no  me  acuerdo  en  que  dia  del  mes. 

Preg.  156. — El  documento  esta  en  la  letra  de  Yd,  y  esta  en  su  pre- 
sencia  de  Yd,  Yd  lo  ha  examinado.  encuentra  Yd  la  fecha  escrito  ple- 
namente,  y  sin  embargo  dice  Yd  que  no  se  acuerda  del  dia  en  que  fue 
escrito,  tiene  Yd  alguna  razon  para  suponer  que  fue*  escrito  en  algun 
dia  diferente  del  clia  de  su  fecha  ? 

Res.  156. — Fue  escrito  algunos  dias  antes  del  dia  de  su  fecha. 

Preg.  157. — Yo  ya  le  he  preguntado  a  Yd  si  el  documento  dice  la 
verdad  tocante  a  la  fecha.     Yd  ha  contestado.     No  se  si  dira  la  ver- 


736 

dad  segun  lo  que  dice  mi  testimonio  que  ya  he  dado  en  la  causa  de 
este  titulo  yo  pienso  que  dird  la  verdad  como  puede  Vd  reconciliar  esa 
respuesta  con  lo  que  ha  dicho  en  su  respuesta  No.  156. 

Res.  157. — Porque  yo  escribi  ese  titulo  cinco  o  seis  dias  antes  de  la 
fecha  que  tiene  y  lo  mande  para  Los  Angeles  y  no  se  si  lo  firmaron 
exactamente  el  dia  25  o  no. 

Preg.  158. — Que  derecho  tenia  Yd  escribiendo  en  San  Francisco 
en  el  mes  de  Junio  del  ano  1846  un  documento  de  titulo  que  debia  ser 
firmado  por  el  Gobernador  de  California  en  Los  Angeles  para  ponerle 
la  fecha  y  escribirlo  enteramente  en  el  dicho  documento. 

Res.  158. — El  derecho  que  yo  tenia  rue*  que  me  escribio  de  Los 
Angeles  el  encargado  que  yo  tenia  alii  diciendome  que  estaba  el  pais 
algo  revuelto  y  que  le  mandara  los  papeles  y  informes  apriesa  y  si  po- 
sible  era  el  titulo  para  que  no  mas  lo  firmaran. 

Preg.  159. — Infirio  Vd  de  la  comunicacion  de  su  encargado  en  Los 
Angeles  que  el  pais  estaba  en  un  estado  tan  revuelto  que  el  Goberna- 
dor de  California  y  su  secretario  no  tendrian  tiempo  para  llenar  un 
bianco  en  su  titulo  con  una  fecha  y  el  nombre  del  lugar  en  donde  fue* 
executado  ? 

Res.  159. — Yo  no  pense  nada.     Yo  hize  el  titulo  y  lo  mande. 

Preg.  160. — Dice  Yd  que  el  titulo  rue*  escrito  por  Yd  unos  tres  o 
cuatro  dias  antes  del  dia  de  su  fecha  porque  escojio  Yd  el  dia  25  de 
Junio  1846  para  la  fecha  de  su  titulo  porque  no  le  puso  la  fecha  del 
dia  en  que  lo  escribio.  El  haber  escojido  Yd  ese  dia  de  todos  los  otros 
dias  del  ano  no  demuestra  que  Yd  penso  sobre  eso  y  que  no  fue  fecha- 
do  por  casualidad. 

Res.  160. — Puse  esa  fecha  porque  hize  el  calculo  de  los  dias  que 
tardaria  el  correo  en  llegar. 

Preg.  161. — No  fue'  esa  conducta  de  Yd  muy  estrana.  No  consid- 
eraba  Yd  que  seria  un  mal  que  el  Gobernador  y  su  secretario  firma sen 
un  documento  importante  en  un  dia  diferente  del  de  su  fecha.  No 
tenia  Yd  que  el  no  llegar  el  titulo  tan  luego  como  el  26  de  Junio  o  sus 
muchos  que  haceres  o  alguna  otra  circumstancia,  impediria  el  Gober- 
nador y  su  secretario  de  firmar  el  documento  en  el  dia  que  Yd  habia 
escogido  para  su  fecha ;  y  no  penso  Yd  que  si  asi  susediese  que  lo  fe- 
cha que  Yd  habia  escrito  tan  plenamente  se  tendria  que  borrar  y  que 
se  tendria  que  poner  la  fecha  verdadera  y  que  tal  cambio  podria  dar 
lugar  a  sospechas  toe  ante  a  su  titulo. 

Res.  161. — Yo  no  considero  que  esa  es  una  pregunta  sino  un  cargo 
que  se  me  hace.  Yo  en  ese  tiempo  no  pense  en  eso.  Este  cargo  se 
le  podia  hacer  mas  bien  a  el  Gobernador  por  haberlo  firmado  pero  yo 
lo  creo  el  titulo  muy  legal  pues  el  Gobernador  consintio  en  firmarlo. 

Preg.  162. — Que  se  Josd  Matias  Moreno  que  firmo  como  secretario 
su  titulo  de  Yd  para  el  puerto  de  los  Lobos  y  el  nombre  de  quien  esta 
puesta  bajo  la  nota  en  estos  palabras.     "  Queda  tomada  razon  en  el  li- 


737 

bro  correspondiente,"  fue  el  mismo  hombre  que  firmo  como  secretario 
su  titulo  de  Vd  para  la  huerta  de  Santa  Clara  y  que  firmo  otra  nota 
semejante  en  el  titulo  de  Yd  para  la  huerta  de  Santa  Clara. 

Res.  162. — Es  el  mismo. 

Preg.  163. — Dice  Vd  que  cuando  escribio  Yd  ese  titulo  lo  mando 
por  el  correo,  quien  era  el  que  llevaba  el  correo,  cuanto  tiempo  ponia 
ordinarimente  en  el  correo  en  ir  de  San  Francisco  a  Los  Angeles. 

Res.  163. — No  me  recuerdo  quien  llevaba  el  correo.  El  tiempo  que 
ponian  pare  hacer  el  viaje  dependia  de  la  clase  de  correo  era,  el  ordi- 
nario  ponia  6  o  8  dias  pero  el  extraordinario  iba  mas  pronto  cuando 
digo  correo  quiero  decir  la  persona  que  llevaba  las  comunicaciones. 
No  habian  correos  establecidos  por  el  Gobierno  en  ese  tiempo  ni  habia 
nadie  que  estimase  constantamente  en  el  empleo  del  Gobierno  para  Ue- 
var  el  correo. 

Preg.  164. — Segun  lo  que  yo  entiendo  Yd  ha  dicho  que  hizo  dos 
esfueszos ;  y  dos  no  mas ;  para  obtener  del  Padre  Real  la  posesion  de 
la  huerta  de  Santa  Clara  un  pedimiento  por  medio  de  su  agente  Anto- 
nio Osio  y  el  otro  Id  hicieron  Yd  y  Castaneda  personalmente  en  Santa 
Clara  al  Padre  Real  y  que  fue  durante  la  visita  que  hizo  Yd  a  Santa 
Clara  con  ese  objeto  cuando  escribio  Yd  la  peticion  de  Castro  del  cual 
ha  hablado  Yd  en  su  testimonio  ;  no  es  esto  asi  ? 

Res.  164.— Si. 

Preg.  165. — No  autoriso  Yd  a  Thomas  0.  Larkin  que  tomarse  el 
posesion  de  esa  huerta. 

Res.  165.— Si. 

Preg.  166. — Larkin  le  pidio  al  Padre  Real  o  alguna  otra  persona 
posesion  de  la  huerta  bajo  esa  autoridad. 

Res.  166. — Yo  se  que  el  auduvo  corriendo  transcitos  para  tomar  la 
posesion  y  despues  el  nos  dijo  que  no  podia  tomarlo. 

Preg.  167. — Larkin  fue*  autorisado  por  Yd  y  Castaneda  o  por  Yd 
solo. 

Res.  16T. — Fue  autorisado  por  los  dos. 

Preg.  168. — Se  dieron  esa  autoridad  por  escrito  o  verbalmente. 

Res.  168. — Le  hizimos  una  venta  condicional  de  la  huerta  de  Santa 
Clara. 

Preg.  169. — Esa  venta  condicional  fue*  por  escrito  y  contenia  ellala 
unica  autoridad  que  le  dieron  al  Sor  Larkin  para  tamar  posesion  de  la 
huerta  de  Santa  Clara. 

Res.  169. — Fuo*  por  escrito,  pero  no  me  acuerdo  de  los  pormerons 
de  la  vuelta. 

Preg.  170. — Repito  la  pregunta  No.  168  conteste  la  Yd. 

Res.  170. — No  me  acuerdo  si  se  lo  dimos  por  escrito  o  verbalmente 
epro  nostros  le  dimos  autoridad  para  que  tomara  posesion  de  la  huerta. 

Preg.  171. — En  donde  estaba  el  Sor  Larkin  cuando  Yd  y  Castane- 


738 

da  le  dieron  esa  autoridad  y  en  donde  estaba  cuando  le  hizieron  esa 
venta  condicional  de  que  ha  hablado  Yd. 

Res.  171. — En  Monterey. 

Preg.  172. — Cuanto  tiempo  despues  de  la  vuelta  de  Castaneda  de 
Los  Angeles  fiie*  esto. 

Res.  172. — No  puedo  fixar  el  tiempo  pero  pas6  bastante  tiempo. 

Preg.  173. — Fue*  antes  o  despues  que  Vd  pidieron  posesion  de  la 
huerta  por  medio  de  Osio. 

Res.  173. — Fue*  despues. 

Preg.  174. — Cuanto  tiempo  despues. 

Res.  174. — Tengo  una  idea  no  mas  que  seria  dos  o  tres  meses  des- 
pues. 

Preg.  175. — Dice  Vd  que  Vd  y  Castaneda  le  hicieron  una  venta 
condicional  de  esta  huerta  al  Sor  Larkin.  No  le  hicieron  despues  una 
venta  absolu^i  o  sin  condiciones  al  Sor  Larkin. 

Res.  175. — La  venta  se  la  hizimos  absoluta  pero  en  un  documento 
aparte  estan  las  condiciones. 

Preg.  176. — Esta  venta  absoluta  al  Sor  Larkin  fu6*  hecha  antes  o 
despues  que  Vds  pidieron  posesion  de  la  huerta  por  medio  de  Osio. 

Res.  176. — Fue*  despues. 

Preg.  177. — Esta  venta  al  Sor  Larkin  fue  hecha  antes  o  despues  de 
la  visita  que  hizo  Vd  al  Padre  Real  cuando  escribio  Vd  la  peticion  de 
Castro. 

Res.  177. — Fue*  antes  y  recuerdo  que  la  visita  hiziemos  a  instancias 
del  mismo  Larkin  y  tengo  la  idea  que  el  mismo  nos  habilito  para  hacer 
el  viage. 

Preg.  178.— Ha  dicho  Vd  que  su  venta  condicional  al  Sor  Larkin 
fue*  hecha  bastante  tiempo  despues  de  haber  Vds  pedido  posesion  de  la 
huerta  por  medio  de  Osio ;  tambien  ha  dicho  Vd  que  Osio  perdio  sus 
papeles  de  titulo  originales. 

Cuanto  tiempo  despues  de  la  dicha  perdida  fue*  cuando  los  hallaron  ? 

Res.  178. — No  recuerdo  al  tiempo  pero  debo  tener  una  carta  que 
me  escribia  Jose  Fernandez  cuando  el  los  hallo  ? 

Preg.  179. — No  tiene  Vd  alguna  idea  del  tiempo,  fue  una,  dos,  tres 
o  cuatro  semanas ;  quieros  sus  mejores  recuerdos  sobre  eso. 

Res.  179. — No  puedo  recordarme  pero  por  darle  gusto  dire  que 
fueron  tres,  cuatro  o  cinco  semanas. 

Preg.  180. — Que  hizo  Vd  con  los  papeles  de  titulo  cuando  los  ob- 
tuvo  de  nuevo. 

Res.  180. — Me  parece  que  entonces  fue  ouando  le  hiziemos  la  venta 
a  Larkin. 

Preg.  181. — Que  hizo  Vd  con  los  papeles. 

Res.  181. — Luego  que  los  recibi  de  Fernandez.  Los  entre  que  a 
Castaneda. 


739 

Preg.  182. — En  su  respuesta  No.  180  a  cual  se  refiere  Vd  a  su 
venta  condicional  o  a  su  venta  absoluta  a  Larkin. 

Res.  182.- — No  hubo  mas  que  una  venta  era  con  la  condicion  de 
que  se'  tomaba  el  posesion  de  la  huerta  nos  pagaria  el  dinero  y  si  no 
quedaria  rudo  todo.  Estas  condiciones  fueron  escritos  en  un  docu- 
mento  a  parte  de  la  venta. 

Preg.  183. — Este  documento  de  venta  y  el  instrumento  que  conte- 
nia  las  condiciones  fueron  escritos  al  mismo  tiempo  ? 

Res.  183.— Si. 

Preg.  184. — Vea  Yd  el  documento  que  se  le  ensena  a  Yd  y  diga 
si  conose  la  letra  ? 

Res.  184. — Si  la  conosco. 

Preg.  185. — Conose^  las  firmas. 

Res.  185.— Si. 

Preg.  186. — De  quienes  son. 

Res.  186. — Una  es  mi  y  la  otra  es  de  Juan  Castaiieda. 

Preg.  187. — Qu6  fecha  tiene  ese  instrumento. 

Res.  187.— Setiembre  27  de  '46. 

Preg.  188. — De  quien  es  la  letra  del  cuerpo  del  instrumento. 

Res.  188. — Es  letra  mia. 

Preg.  189. — Yea  Yd  este  documento  y  diga  si  conose  la  letra  y  las 
firmas. 

Res.  189.— Si. 

Preg.  190. — De  quien  es  la  letra  del  documento  y  de  quien  es  son 
las  firmas. 

Res.  190. — La  letra  del  documento  es  de  Juan  Castaiieda  y  las  fir- 
mas son  la  de  el  y  la  mia. 

Preg.  191. — De  quien  es  la  letra  de  las  palabras,  "  Monterey  Sbre 
27  de  1846 ,"  en  el  primer  documento  que  se  le  ha  ensenado  a  Yd,  y 
de  quien  es  la  letra  de  las  palabras  "  y  para  que  conste  firmamos  en 
el  puerto  de  Monterey  a  27  de  Set.  de  1846,"  en  el  ultimo  documen- 
to que  se  le  ha  ensenado  a  Yd  ?  Que  se  estas  palabras  no  se  usaron 
con  el  fin,de  espresar  el  lugar  en  donde  s6  hizieron  estos  documentOs 
y  las  fechas  en  que  se  hizieron. 

Res.  191. — Las  palabras  mencionadas  y  que  estanen  el  primer  doc- 
umento estan  en  mi  letra  del  segundo  documento  estan  en  letra  de 
Castaiieda.  Estas  palabras  se  usaron  para  espresar  el  lugar  en  donde 
se  hizo  los  documentos  y  las  fechas  en  que  se  hizieron. 

Preg.  192. — Que  si  estos  documentos  se  hizieron  en  el  lugar  y  al 
tiempo  que  ellos  mismos  demuestra. 

Res.  192.— Si. 

Preg.  193. — Que  si  el  Castaiieda  que  los  ha  firmado  es  el  mismo  uno 
Castaiieda  de  quien  ha  hablado  Yd  en  toda  esta  deposicion. 

Res.  193. — Es  el  mismo. 


740 

Preg.  194. — Castaiieda  firmo  esos  dos  documentos  en  presencia  de 
Vd. 

Res.  194.— Si. 

Preg.  195. — Ha  dicho  Vd  que  despues  que  recibio  Vd  el  subpoena 
para  que  diese  testimonio  en  esta  causa  busco  a  James  Crane  para  que 
se  le  tradujese  e  lo  encontro  Vd,  se  lo  tradujo  el,  J  cuanto  tiempo  des- 
pues de  haberlo  Vd  recibido. 

Res.  195. — Lo  encontre  la  misma  tarde  que  recibi  la  subpoena  y  el 
me  lo  tradujo. 

Preg.  196. — Vea  Vd  el  documento  que  ahora  se  le  ensena  que  pa- 
rece  ser  su  deposicion  de  Vd  en  favor  de  los  actores  en  la  causa  de  los 
E.  U.  contra  Joseph  C.  Palmer  y  otros,  No.  394  siendo  apelacion  de 
la  Comision  de  Terrenos  de  los  E.  U.  en  la  causa  No.  515  en  un  reg- 
istro  de  dicha  comision,  la  cual  deposicion  parece  haber  sido  empezado 
el  7  de  Mayo  de  1857,  y  haber  sido  jurado  y  firmado  el  11  de  Mayo 
de  1857  ante  J.  Edgar  Grymes  Comisionado  Especial  y  vea  Vd  par- 
ticularmente  a  las  palabras  siguientes  en  dicha  deposicion.  "  Conosco 
bien  al  Sor  D.  Santiago  C.  Crane  es  dudoso  que  el  seahombre  de  ver- 
cidad.  Yo  no  lo  creria  a  el  bajo  juramento,"  diga  si  Vd  dio  esta  de- 
posicion bajo  juramento  y  si  esa  parte  de  el  a  la  cual  se  le  refiere,  ex- 
presa  exactamente  el  testimonio  que  Vd  dio  en  esa  ocasion. 

Res.  196. — Me  parece  que  no  esta  muy  exacta,  recuerdo  que  dige 
que  no  creiria  su  juramento  en  la  causa  ante  dicha. 

Preg.  197. — Quien  fue  el  interprete  en  esa  ocasion. 

Res.  197. — Fue  el  mismo  que  escribia  la  deposicion  el  comisionado. 

Preg.  198. — No  digo  Vd  poco  tiempo  despues  del  primer  examen 
que  hizo  Vd  estos  documentos  a  Antonie  Maria  Pico  y  Jose'  Fernandez 
a  a  uno  de  ellos  en  el  St.  Francis  Hotel  en  esta  ciudad  que  la  peticion 
de  Castro,  este  documento  fue  estrito  por  Vd  antes  de  vise  Vd  para  el 
Sur  en  la'  espedicion  de  Castro,  que  Vd  ha  mencionao^o. 

Res.  198. — No.  Ellos  me  preguntaron  si  yo  habia  escrito  el  docu- 
mento y  yo  les  dige  que  si,  que  creia  que  era  mui  bueno  porque  yo  lo 
habia  escrito  en  el  cuarto  del  Padre  Real.  No  mencionamos  nada  de 
la  espedicion  de  Castro  ni  de  haberme  ido  yo  con  el. 

Preg.  199. — Vd  dijo  que  cuando  primero  examino  Vd  estos  docu- 
mentos lo  dijo  Vd  al  Sor  Laurencel  que  reconocio  Vd  unicamente  la 
letra  de  Castaiieda  y  que  Vd  se  retiro  luego  para  que  el  Sor  Lauren- 
cel no  tuviese  lugar  para  hacerle  a  Vd  preguntas  tocante  a  su  letra  en 
la  peticion  de  Castro  y  este  porque  no  queria  Vd  ser  testigo  en  la 
causa.  Tambien  ha  dicho  Vd  que  no  tuvo  comunicacion  alguna  con 
el  Sor  Laurencel  ni  con  ningun  agente  de  el  directamente  hasta  que 
le  encontro  a  el  en  la  calle  de  Montgomery  cuando  volvio  Vd  de  San 
Jose*,  en  la  cual  ocasion  todo  lo  que  ocurrio  entre  Vds  fud  un  saludoy 
una  invitacion  del  Sor  Laurencel  a  Vd  que  volviese  Vd  a  examinar  los 
mismos  papeles  el  dia  siguiente.     Tambien  ha  dicho  Vd  que  accepto 


741 

la  imitacion  y  examino  los  papeles  por  consiguiente  y  en  el  tal  examen 
el  Sor  Laurencel  le  hizo  a  Vd  bastantes  preguntas,  a  todos  las  cuales 
contesto  Vd,  de  que  contesto  Vd,  de  que  modo  le  quitaron  a  Vd  la  re- 
pugnacion  que  tenia  de  ser  testigo  en  esta  causa. 

Res.  199. — Yo  nunca  creia  ser  testigo  nunca  dije  al  Sor  Laurencel 
en  mis  respuestas  que  me  acordaba  cuando  lo  habia  hecho  y  por  eso 
mismo  crei  que  no  me  necesitaba.  Yo  si  hubiera  sabido  que  me  iban 
a  sorprender  hubiera  procurado  evardirlo. 

Res.  200. — Entonces  parece  que  Vd  no  tuvo  tanto  cuidada  cuando 
hizo  el  segundo  examen  como  tuvo  cuando  hizo  el  primer  examen  y 
entonces  no  sospechaba  Vd  que  el  Sor  Laurencel  deseaba  su  testimo- 
nio  en  esta  causa :  porque  estuvo  Vd  tanto  mas  confiado  cuando  hizo 
el  ultimo  examen  de  los  papeles  que  cuando  hizo  el  primer  examen. 
Y  porque  razon  pensaba  Vd  que  el  tiempo  en  que  Vd  escribio  la  peti- 
tion de  Castro  era  cosa  de  importancia  para  el  Sor  Laurencel  y  que  si 
el  no  podia  probar  con  Vd  que  fue  escrito  en  un  dia  diferente  de  el  de 
su  fecha,  no  tenia  Vd  que  temer  que  le  llamarian  como  testigo  en  esta 
causa  ? 

Res.  200. — Yo  no  sabia  que  era  cosa  de  importanr,a  para  el.  No 
estaba  impuesto  del  asunto. 

Preg.  201. — Es  todo  lo  que  tiene  Vd  que  decir  en  respuesta  a  la 
pregunta  anterior  ? 

Res.  201. — Como  el  Sor  Laurencel  me  hizo  unas  preguntas  no  mui 
claras  yo  le  conteste  y  no  sospechaba  que  me  llamaria  como  testigo. 
No  conocia  nada  del  asunto. 

Preg-  202. — Ya  ha  declarado  Vd  positivamente  que  Vd  considera- 
ba  mientras  que  hacia  el  segundo  examen  de  estos  documentos  que  el 
Sor  Laurencel  no  necesitaria  su  testimonio  porque  todria  no  le  habia 
dicho  Vd  cuando  habia  escrito  la  peticion  de  Castro  y  ahora  declara 
Vd  positivamente  que  al  tiempo  que  hizo  el  segundo  examen  de  los 
papeles  no  sabia  Vd  nada  de  este  negocio  ;  estas  dos^declaraciones  son 
repugnantes  una  a  otro  ;  cual  de  los  dos  dice  Vd  ahora  que  es  la  ver- 
dadera. 

Res.  202. — No  entiendo  la  pregunta.  No  veo  contradiction  en  esas 
dos  respuestas.    Yo  nunca  pensaba  que  mi  testimonio  era  importante. 

Preg.  203. — Cuando  fue  la  ultima  vez  que  Vd  vio  el  periodico  que 
hablaba  del  choque  que  tuvo  Vd  con  el  Padre  Real. 

Res.  203. — Hace  muchos  anos  ne  le  he  visto  mas  de  uno  o  dos  ve- 
ses  desde  que  se  public6. 

Preg.  204. — Lo  ha  visto  Vd  un  el  alio  proximo  pasado. 

Res.  204.-?-No. 

Preg.  207. — Durante  ese  tiempo  alguno  le  ha  dicho  a  Vd  algo  to- 
cante  a  el. 

Res.  205.— No. 


742 

Preg.  206. — Diga  Vd  plenamente  todo  lo  que  recuerda  de  la  publi- 
cacion  en  el  periodico  de  que  ha  hablado  Vd. 

Res.  206. — Do  lo  que  decia  el  periodico  no  recuerdo ;  pero  tengo 
idea  que  hablaba  sobre  la  posecion  de  la  huerta. 

Preg.  207. — Contenia  esa  publicacion  una  corta  de  Yd  al  Padre 
Real ;  y  si  asi  fue,  contenia  tambien  la  respuesta  del  Padre  a  su  carta 
de  Yd.  Ha  dicho  Yd  en  su  contra  examen  que  Yd  contesto  en  los 
periodicos  a  la  carta  del  Padre  cuando  Yd  supo  como  le  habian  trada- 
do  a  Yd  el  Padre  y  Osio  cuando  se  hizo  la  contestacion  de  Yd  ? 

Res.  207. — No  recuerdo  pero  me  parece  que  hay  una  carta  de  por 
medio  de  la  publicacion.  Carta  mia  al  Padre  Real.  El  puso  primero 
una  carta  mia  y  yo  despues  puso  mi  contestacion  segun  recuerdo.  El 
Padre  Real  sin  duda  puso  algo  con  mi  primera  carta. 

Preg.  208. — Se  mencion6  el  nombre  del  Sor  Larkin  en  su  carta  de 
Yd  al  Padre  Real  que  fue  publicado  ? 

Res.  208. — No  recuerdo. 

Direct  Examination  Resumed. 

Preg.  4. — Uno  de  estos  fue  Secretario  y  el  otro  ayundante  del  Sec- 
re  tario  y  si  asi  fue'  cual  ? 

Res.  4. — Juan  Castaneda  era  el  Secretario,  y  el  otro  era  el  Ayu- 
dante. 

Preg.  5. — Estuvieron  estas  dos  personas  o  alguno  de  ellos  presentes 
en  Santa  Clara  con  el  General  Castro  durante  el  dicho  mes  de  Junio 
de  1846  ? 

Res.  5. — Si  estuvieron  los  dos. 

Preg.  6. — -Durante  ese  tiempo  escribio  Yd  para  el  General  Castro 
algun  papel  cuales  queria. 

Res.  6. — No  recuerdo  haber  escrito. 

Preg.  7. — Se  acuerda  Yd  haberle  servido  de  Secretario  en  cuales- 
quier  tiempo  durante  esa  campana. 

Res.  7. — Nunca  lo  servi  de  Secretario. 

Preg.  8. — Se  acuerda  Yd  de  alguna  cosa  que  occurrio  en  la  ocasion 
de  su  visita  al  Padre  Real  cuando  escribio  Yd  la  peticion  firmado  por 
Jose'  Castro  que  fixa  en  su  memoria  esa  circumstancia.  Quiero  ciecir 
alguna  cosa  que  alia  ocurrido  entre  Yd  y  Castaneda  quien  ha  dicho 
Yd  que  fue  su  companiero  ? 

Res.  8. — Lo  que  tengo  fixo  en  mi  memoria  es  que  fuimos  en  esa 
ocasion  a  reclamar  la  huerta  de  Santa  Clara. 

Preg.  9. — Se  acuerda  Yd  de  alguna  cosa  que  paso  entre  Yd  y  Cas- 
taneda durante  esa  visita  o  luego  despues  de  su  salida  de  alii  o  en  al- 
gun tiempo  despues  que  fixa  en  su  memoria  el  hecho  de  haber  Yd  es- 
crito easa  peticion  en  ese  tiempo. 

Res.  9. — Recuerdo  algo ;  cuando  yo  y  Charley  Clayton  y  Santiago 


743 

Crane  fuimos  a  Sonoma  en  el  ano  '49  o  '50  a  comprarle  a  Castaneda 
su  parte  de  la  huerta  de  Santa  Clara  me  hizo  Castaneda  algunas  espli- 
caciones  y  me  dio  algunas  quejas  del  Padre  Red  sobre  lo  mal  que  lo 
habia  tratado  en  la  asunto  de  la  huerta  que  nosotros  no  habiamos  to- 
rnado la  posecion  de  la  huerta  por  causa  del  Padre  Real,  j  entonces 
me  conto  que  el  habia  escrito  algunos  cosas  al  Padre  Real  y  que  tenia 
esperanzas  de  vengarse  algun  dia.  El  no  me  dijo  lo  que  habia  escrito 
al  Padre  Real. 

Preg.  10. — Que  si  el  tal  Crane  de  quien  Vd  ha  hablado  es  unhom- 
bre  muy  conocido  entre  los  antiguos  habitantes  de  California  y  no  es  el 
un  individuo  que  los  interesados  en  pleitos  tocantes  a  cosas  que  ocur- 
rieron  bajo  el  dominio  el  Gobierno  Mexicano  en  este  pais  suelen  em- 
plear  muy  amenudo  como  agente  para  bascar  testigos  y  procurar  testi- 
monio. 

Res.  10.— Si. 

Filed  Deer.  29th,  1857. 

J.  EDGAR  GRYMES, 

Deputy. 


DEPOSITION  OP  JOHN  M.  MURPHY. 

United  States  District  Court, 
Northern  District  California. 

San  Francisco,  Dec.  23,  1857. 
On  this  day,  before  Cutler  McAllister,  Commissioner  of  the  United 
States  for  the  Northern  District  of  California,  duly  authorised  to  ad- 
minister oaths,  &C,  &c,  came  John  M.  Murphy,  a  witness  produced 
on  behalf  of  the  claimant,  in  Case  No.  420,  being  an  appeal  from  the 
Board  of  Commissioners  to  ascertain  and  settle  the  Private  Land 
Claims  in  the  State  of  California,  in  Case  No.  366  on  the  Docket  of 
the  said  Board  of  Commissioners,  and  was  duly  sworn  and  testified  as 
follows : 

Present. — United   States  Attorney  by   E.  Randolph  ;  A.  C. 
Peachy  for  Claimant. 

Questions  by  Attorney  for  Claimant. 

Question  1. — Your  name,  age  and  place  of  residence  ? 
Answer  1. — John  M.  Murphy  ;  I  am  33  years  of  age  ;  I  reside  in 
Santa  Clara  County. 


744 

Ques.  2. — How  long  have  you  resided  in  Santa  Clara  County  ? 

Ans.  2. — Twelve  years. 

Ques.  3. — Did  you  ever  live  in  the  Pueblo  of  San  Jose  ? 

Ans.  3. — I  lived  there  from  May  or  June,  1845,  somewhere  in  the 
spring  of  1845,  until  1848. 

Ques.  4. — What  was  your  employment  there  in  1845  ? 

Ans.  4. — I  was  a  clerk  in  Charles  M.  Weber's  store.  He  now 
resides  in  Stockton. 

Ques.  5. — Do  you  know  when  the  stockade  was  built  by  the 
Americans  around  the  Jusgado  at  San  Jose*,  and  were  you  engaged 
in  military  service  at  that  time  ;  if  so,  on  which  side  ? 

Ans.  5. — The  stockade  was  built  some  time  in  the  month  of  No- 
vember, or  beginning  of  December,  1846,  my  impression  is  it  was  in 
November ;  I  was  a  lieutenant  in  Capt.  Weber's  company  of  mounted 
Rangers,  organized  under  the  supervision  of  Capt.  Hull,  of  the  U.  S. 
Navy,  on  the  side  of  the  Americans. 

Ques.  6. — Did  you  know  Burton,  former  Alcalde  of  San  Jose*  ?  If 
yea,  state  when  he  was  elected  to  that  office. 

Ans.  6. — I  did  know  Burton  ;  he  must  have  been  elected  some  time 
in  October  or  November,  1846. 

Ques.  7. — Who  was  Alcalde  in  the  months  of  August  and  Septem- 
ber, 1846  ? 

Ans.  7. — In  the  month  of  August,  Pedro  Chaboya  was,  and  I  think 
September. 

Ques.  8. — Did  you  vote  at  the  election  of  Burton  ? 

Ans.  8. — I  did.  The  election  was  held  in  a  room  back  of  Weber's 
store  ;  we  voted  viva  voce. 

Ques.  9. — Was  that  in  the  dry  or  the  wet  season  ? 

Ans.  9, — The  rains  had  commenced,  it  was  raining  that  day. 

Ques.  10. — Do  you  know  Salvio  Pacheco  ? 

Ans.  10.— I  do. 

Ques.  11. — Do  you  know  whether  he  was  living  in  San  Jose*,  in  the 
Pueblo,  in  1846  ? 

Ans.  11. — Yes,  he  was. 

Ques.  12. — Do  you  mean  the  whole  year  ? 

Ans.  12. — Yes ;  that  was  his  place  of  residence  in  1846. 

Ques.  13. — Do  you  know  what  his  employment  was  in  1846  ? 

Ans.  13. — No,  I  don't  know  what  employment  he  was  in  ;  he  was 
living  there  and  had  a  vineyard  and  a  little  orchard. 

Ques.  14. — Are  you  acquainted  with  the  handwriting  of  Salvio 
Pacheco,  and  with  the  signatures  of  Dolores  Pacheco,  and  Pedro 
Chaboya  ? 

Ans.  14. — I  am  better  acquainted  with  the  signatures  of  Dolores 
Pacheco  and  Pedro  Chaboya,  than  I  am  with  the  handwriting  of  Sal- 
vio Pacheco,  because  I  have  seen  them  write  ;  but  I  have  seen  the 


745 

handwriting  of  Salvio  Pacheco  so  often,  that  I  think  I  should  recog- 
nize it. 

Ques.  15. — Look  at  exhibit  "  A.  B."  attached  to  the  deposition  of 
Jose'  Fernandez,  and  say  if  you  know  the  handwriting  of  the  body  of 
this  instrument,  and  say  if  the  signature  of  Chaboya,  wherever  the 
same  appears,  is  his  genuine  signature. 

Ans.  15. — I  do  not  know  the  handwriting  of  the  body  of  the  in- 
strument :  I  do  recognize  the  signature  of  Pedro  Chaboya  here  tho', 
and  it  is  his  genuine  signature,  it  occurs  four  times  in  said  docu- 
ment. 

Ques.  16. — Did  you  know  Andres  Castillero,  the  claimant  ? 

Ans.  16. — I  did  ;  I  was  not  particularly  intimate  with  him  ;  I  have 
seen  him  and  spoken  with  him. 

Ques.  17. — Did  you  ever  hear  of  his  having  discovered  the  mine 
called  New  Almaden,  and  of  his  having  had  possession  of  it'  given 
him  ?  if  yea,  state  where  you  first  heard  it. 

Ans.  17. — I  heard  it  first  in  1845  ;  it  was  in  Weber's  store  ;  Cas- 
tillero, Pico,  and  Fernandez,  and  some  others,  were  in  there  taking  a 
drink,  and  I  heard  them  speak  of  having  been  out  at  the  newly  dis- 
covered quicksilver  mine,  giving  or  taking  possession  of  the  mine. 
Pico  was  at  that  time  Alcalde  ;  I  do  not  remember  particularly  the 
words  that  they  used,  but  they  related  to  their  having  been  out  tak- 
ing possession  of  the  quicksilver  mine. 

Ques.  18. — Do  you  know  when  Gen.  Castro  left  California,  in 
1846? 

Ans.  18. — I  could  not  state  positively  the  time  ;  but  he  left  Santa 
Clara  on  his  way,  sometime  about  the  middle  of  July,  it  was  not  over 
the  middle  of  July  ;  some  three,  four  or  five  days  after  the  American 
flag  was  hoisted  I  left  Monterey,  and  I  saw  him  in  Santa  Clara  at 
that  time ;  I  went  to  Sacramento  and  was  gone  8  or  10  days,  and 
when  I  returned  he  had  left. 

Ques.  19. — Do  you  know  when  he  returned  to  California  ? 

Ans.  19. — I  do  not  know  when  he  returned  to  California  ;  I  know 
when  he  came  to  Monterey  ;  that  was  sometime  in  the  month  of  Feb- 
ruary or  March,  1848  ;  it  was  in  the  wet  season,  after  our  company 
was  discharged  ;  I  do  not  know  exactly  the  time  ;  I  wont  be  positive. 

Ques.  20. — Did  his  arrival  at  Monterey  create  any  sensation  among 
the  people  ?  State  what  you  saw. 

Ans.  20. — There  were  several  of  us  walked  up  to  Gov.  Mason's 
office,  to  see  Castro  ride  up  there  ;  we  saw  him  ride  up,  dismount, 
shake  hands  with  the  Governor  and  walk  into  his  office. 

Cross-Examination. 

Ques.  1 . — When  did  you  join  Weber's  Company  ? 
55 


746 

Ans.  1. — November,  1846 ;  I  could  not  state  the  day,  about  the 
first  of  November,  I  guess. 

Ques.  2. — Where  was  Captain  Weber  then  ? 

Ans.  2. — He  was  in  San  Jose'. 

Ques.  3. — What  American  officer  first  took  San  Jose*  ? 

Ans.  3.— -I  don't  recollect  that  there  was  any  taking  about  it ;  Col. 
Fremont  was  the  first  officer  that  ever  entered  it  with  any  American 
forces  ;  that  was  sometime  before  the  war  in  Mexico. 

Ques.  4. — What  American  officer  first  entered  it  with  any  Ameri- 
can force  after  the  war  commenced  ? 

Ans.  4. — I  can  tell  the  different  officers  that  entered  there  with 
forces  ;  but  I  cannot  tell  you  which  was  the  first  one  that  entered. 
There  was  Watmore  of  the  Portsmouth ,  Fauntleroy  of  the  Savannah, 
Pinckney,  Fremont's  battallion,  with  the  different  officers  that  be- 
longed to  it ;  I  could  not  tell  you  who  they  were. 

Ques.  5. — About  what  time  did  any  of  these  first  enter  the  place  ? 

Ans.  5. — Watmore  came  there  some  time  in  the  summer  of  1846, 
and  Fauntleroy  also  ;  it  might  have  been  some  time  in  September,  or 
the  latter  part  of  August. 

Ques.  6. — How  long  did  either  of  these  officers  remain  there. 

Ans.  6. — I  do  not  know  how  long ;  it  was  not  a  great  while  though. 

Ques.  7. — When  were  any  troops  first  stationed  in  San  Josd;  un- 
der what  officer  ;  how  long  did  they  stay  there  ? 

Ans.  7. — I  have  answered  already,  that  I  did  not  know  when  they 
first  came  there,  but  I  think  that  Watmore's  and  Fauntleroy's  were 
the  first  regular  troops  that  came  there,  that  were  stationed  there  for 
any  time. 

Ques.  8. — Then  I  understand  you  that  Watmore  and  Fauntleroy, 
with  regular  troops,  occupied  San  Jose'  for  some  time  ? 

Ans.  8. — Yes ;  I  told  you  though  that  I  did  not  know  for  how 
long. 

Ques.  9. — Were  there  not  also  some  irregular  troops  stationed  in 
San  Jose\  somewhere  near  that  time  ? 

Ans.  9. — There  were  some  of  the  citizens  there  who  joined  the 
companies  and  went  out  to  the  Tulare  plains  after  some  Indians; 

Ques.  10. — When  the  troops  were  in  San  Josd,  where  were  they 
quartered  V 

Ans.  10. — They  were  stationed  in  the  room  that  ran  back  of  Web- 
er's store,  I  mean  Watmore's  and  Fauntleroys. 

Ques.  11. — Were  not  any  portion  of  them  quartered  in  the  Jusgado  ? 

Ans.  11. — Of  those  companies,  I  think  not. 

Ques.  12. — Of  any  other  companies  ? 

Ans.  12. — Not  at  that  time. 

Ques.  13. — Where  were  you  during  the  months  of  July  and  August, 
1846,  and  what  was  your  occupation  V 


747 

Ans.  13. — In  the  month  of  July  I  was  in  Monterey,  Santa  Clara, 
San  Francisco,  Marin,  Napa,  and  on  to  Sacramento  ;  I  carried  some 
dispatches  from  Commodore  Sloat  to  Sutter's  Fort,  and  went  through 
those  counties  on  my  way  to  Sacramento :  I  rode  from  Monterey  to 
Sacramento  in  three  days,  and  from  Monterey  to  San  Francisco 
between  six  o'clock  in  the  morning  and  a  little  before  dark ;  from 
Sacramento  I  returned  to  San  Jose* ;  I  was  taken  sick  at  Sacra- 
mento and  came  down  to  General  Vallejo's  house  at  Sonoma,  where 
I  remained  some  days,  and  then  came  to  San  Jose* ;  I  was  gone  from 
the  time  I  started  about  eight  or  ten  days.  The  distance  between 
Monterey  and  San  Francisco  is  about  129  miles  ;  Capt.  Montgomery 
had  me  landed  in  a  boat  at  Sonoma ;  there  I  got  horses,  and  went  on 
to  Sacramento. 

Ques.  14. — Where  had  you  been  in  that  month  before  Commodore 
Sloat  gave  you  the  dispatches  to  carry  up  to  Sacramento  ? 

Ans.  14. — I  was  in  Santa  Clara  county  before  I  went  to  Monterey. 

Ques.  15. — At  what  place  in  Santa  Clara  county,  and  when  did  you 
go  to  Monterey  ? 

Ans.  15. — Either  at  the  ranch,  or  in  the  town,  I  don't  know  which  ; 
I  got  to  Monterey  some  days  after  the  American  flag  was  hoisted,  and 
stayed  there  one  night  and  left  the  next  day  with  dispatches. 

Ques.  16. — Did  Weber  keep  his  store  open  in  July,  1846  ? 

Ans.  16. — He  did. 

Ques.  17. — After  your  return  from  Saeramento,  where  did  you 
spend  the  rest  of  that  month  of  July  ? 

Ans.  17. — Either  on  the  ranch  or  at  San  Jose\ 

Ques.  18. — Were  you  still  a  clerk  of  Weber's  in  July,  1846  ? 

Ans.  18.— No. 

Ques.  19. — Where  did  you  spend  the  month  of  August,  1846,  and 
what  was  your  occupation  ? 

Ans.  19. — I  think  I  spent  the  entire  month  in  Santa  Clara  county  ; 
I  used  to  go  out  and  lasso  a  bullock  occasionally,  &c;  it  might  have 
been  in  the  latter  part  of  August  that  I  went  out  with  Watmore  ;  I  am 
not  positive. 

Ques.  20. — How  do  you  know  that  Pedro  Chaboya  was  Alcalde  in 
July  and  August,  1846  ;  what  do  you  remember  to  have  seem  him  do 
as  Alcalde  ? 

Ans.  20. — I  do  not  know  that  I  could  state  any  official  act  that  I 
saw  him  do ;  I  know  that  he  was  by  seeing  him  in  the  Jusgado,  and 
by  his  being  recognized  as  the  Alcalde  of  the  Pueblo. 

Ques.  21. — Do  you  remember  no  circumstance  whatever  of  the  first 
entrance  of  Fremont's  men,  or  any  other  Ameriean  troops  into   San 

J0S<3? 

Ans.  21. — None,  except  what  I  have  told  you. 

Ques.  22. — Do  you  not  remember  that  they  took  the  Jusgado  and 


748 

public  offices,  and  that  one  of  Fremont's  men  struck  Pedro  Chaboya  a 
severe  blow  with  a  pistol  ? 

Ans.  22. — I  did  not  see  the  circumstance,  but  I  recollect  something 
about  it ;  Charley  Mcintosh,  one  of  Fremont's  men,  having  some  diffi- 
culty with  Chaboya,  but  that  was  a  short  time  before  Fremont  went 
below  in  1846,  the  last  time  ;  he  must  have  left  San  Jose  in  October 
or  November. 

Ques.  23. — By  what  circumstance  do  you  remember  that  it  was  in 
the  year  1844,  that  you  heard  Pico,  Castillero  and  Fernandez,  &c, 
speak  about  taking  possession  of  the  mine  ? 

Ans.  23. — Because  it  was  in  1845  that  I  was  hired  in  Weber's 
store. 

Ques.  24. — Were  you  employed  in  that  store  at  any  time  during 
the  year  1846  ? 

Ans.  24.— No. 

Ques.  25. — At  what  time  did  your  employment  there  cease  ? 

Ans.  25. — It  was  before  Christmas  •  how  long  before  I  do  not 
recollect. 

Ques.  26. — How  long  before  your  employment  ceased  there  was  it 
that  you  heard  the  conversation  referred  to  ? 

Ans.  26. — I  could  not  state  how  long  before  it  was. 

Ques.  2T. — Was  it  on  the  very  last  day  of  your  employment  there  ? 

Ans.  27. — I  do  not  know ;  our  store  was  the  public  resort  there  at 
that  time. 

Ques.  28. — Was  it  within  the  last  week  of  your  employment  there  ? 

Ans.  28. — I  haue  no  idea,  I  cannot  tell. 

Ques.  29 — Was  it  within  the  last  month  of  your  employment? 

Ans.  29. — I  can't  say  ;  I  do  not  know. 

Ques.  30. — Did  your  employment  there  continue  up  to  Christmas  ? 

Ans.  30. — I  think  not. 

Ques.  31. — Do  you  remember  where  you  were  the  Christmas  of 
1845? 

Ans.  31. — At  that  time  I  was  in  San  Jose',  and  on  New  Years  too. 

Ques.  32. — Can  you  remember  now  whether  on  those  two  days,  or 
either  of  them,  you  were  still  a  clerk  for  Weber  ? 

Ans.  32. — I  think  I  was  not. 

Ques.  33. — Can  you  remember  whether  it  was  the  dry  season  or  the 
rainy  season  when  you  heard  the  conversation  referred  to  ? 

Ans.  33. — I  can  not. 

Ques.  24. — You  say  Castillero,  Pico,  Fernandez,  &c,  were  in  the 
store  taking  a  drink  when  they  spoke  something  about  having  been  to 
the  mine  taking  possession,  was  it  not  part  of  your  duty  as  a  clerk  to 
wait  on  them,  and  did  you  not  wait  on  them  on  that  occasion  ? 

Ans.  34. — I  waited  on  them  ;  yes. 


749 
Direct  Examination  Resumed. 

Ques.  1. — Have  you  lately  examined  in  the  city  of  San  Jose*  the 
old  records  of  the  Alcalde's  office,  for  the  purpose  of  seeing  whether 
Chaboya  in  the  month  of  August  and  September,  1846,  performed  any 
official  act  as  Alcalde  ? 

(Question  objected  to  on  the  ground  that  claimant  should  produce 
the  records  or  certified  copies,  and  not  ask  the  witness  if  he  had  seen 
such.) 

Ans.  1. — I  examined  in  the  County  Recorder's  office  of  Santa  Clara 
county,  the  old  Alcalde  records  there,  and  found  records  there  signed 
by  Chabolla,  bearing  date  August  and  July,  1846  ;  I  would  not  be 
positive  whether  there  is  or  is  not  any  records  there  bearing  date  Sep- 
tember, 1846. 

(Question  and  answer  objected  to  upon  the  ground  also  that  the 
legal  custodian  of  said  records  is  the  proper  person  to  prove  whether 
books  in  that  office  are  books  of  record  or  not.)  • 

JOHN  M.  MURPHY. 

Subscribed  and  sworn  to  before  me  this  23d  day  of  December,  1837. 

cutler  McAllister, 

U.  S.  Commissioner. 

Filed  September  6,  1858. 

W.  H.  CHEVERS,  Clerk. 


DEPOSITION  OF  DOMINGO  DANGLADA. 

United  States  District  Court, 
Northern  District  California. 

San  Francisco,  Dec.  29, 1857. 

On  this  day,  before  Cutler  McAllister,  a  Commissioner  of  the 
United  States  for  the  Northern  District  of  California,  duly  au- 
thorized to  administer  oaths,  &c.  &c,  came  Domingo  Danglada,  a 
witness  produced  on  behalf  of  the  United  States,  in  Case  No.  420, 
being  an  appeal  from  the  Board  of  Commissioners  to  ascertain 
and  settle  the  Private  Land  Claims  in  the  State  of  California,  in 


750 

Case  No.  366  on  the  Docket  of  the  said  Board  of  Commissioners, 
and  was  duly  sworn  and  testified  as  follows  : 

Present.  E.  Randolph  for  United  States  Attorney  ;  A.  C. 
Peachy  for  Claimant. 

Questions  by  U.  S.  Attorney. 

Ques.  1. — Your  name,  age,  business,  place  of  residence? 

Ans.  1. — My  name  is  Domingo  Danglada  ;  I  am  50  years  old  ; 
I  reside  in  the  Mission  of  Dolores,  but  attend  to  my  business  here 
in  San  Francisco  ;  I  am  a  Merchant. 

Ques.  2. — Look  at  the  paper  attached  to  the  deposition  of  John 
Paty  which  purports  to  be  a  certificate  of  Carlos  Horn  under  the 
seal  of  the  "Capitania  del  Puerto  de  San  Bias"  Mexico,  with  an- 
other certificate  by  Ignacio  Echagaray,  under  the  seal  of  "  Gobi- 
eino  Politico  del  Canton  de  Topic  "  Mexico,  and  say  whether  you 
have  ever  seen  that  paper  before,  this  paper  being  the  same 
marked  "  J  P.  No.  5,"  attached  to  the  deposition  of  John  Paty  ? 

(Question  objected  to  on  the  ground  that  whether  the  witness 
has  or  has  not  seen  that  paper  before  is  an  irrelevant  fact.) 

Ans.  2. — I  have  seen  this  paper  before. 

Ques.  3. — When,  and  in  what  manner  did  it  come  to  your  knowl- 
edge ? 

(Question  objected  to  on  the  ground  that  the  manner  in  which 
the  paper  came  to  the  witness7  knowledge  is  an  irrelevant  fact.) 

Ans.  3. — I  don't  reccollect  exactly  when  I  first  saw  it,  but  a 
person  of  the  name  of  H.  Laurencel  applied  to  me  in  the  month 
of  June  last,  requesting  me  to  ask  from  the  Captain  of  tne  Port 
of  San  Bias  a  certificate  of  the  arrival  of  the  Kanaka  ship  '*  Don 
Quixote  n  Captain  John  Paty,  which  vessel  the  said  Laurencel 
said  had  sailed  in  the  year  1846  from  Monterey  to  San  Bias  some- 
time in  the  month  of  April,  although  he  was  not  very  sure  of  the 
date  of  the  sailing ;  as  Mr.  Laurencel  was  a  person  unknown  to 
me,  after  I  took  some  information,  I  wrote  to  Mr.  Casmiro  Men- 
doza  of  Tepic,  stating  that  the  said  vessel  must  have  arrived  about 
the  month  of  April  and  May  at  the  port  of  San  Bias,  and  I  wished 
him  to  apply  to  the  Captain  of  the  port  of  San  Bias,  and  get  a 
certificate  of  the  arrival  according  to  the  records  which  must  be 
kept  in  the  archives  of  the  office  of  the  Captain  of  the  port  in 
the  book  of  the  arrivals  and  departures  of  vessels,  consequently 
my  friend  Mendoza  forwarded  to  me  the  certificate  which  has  been 


751 

shown  to  me,  which  I  gave  to  Mr.  Laurencel  in  a  letter  dated  16th 
September  1857  ;  this  is  all  I  know  of  this  thing. 

Ques.  4. — Of  whom  did  you  take  information  before  you  wrote; 
what  person  or  persons  do  you  refer  to  ? 

Ans.  4. — As  Mr.  Lanrencel  left  a  note  stating  that  he  wanted 
to  see  me,  and  I  was  not  acquainted  with  him,  I  enquired  what 
kind  of  a  person  he  was  ;  I  enquired  of  Messrs.  Casseau,  Pouton 
and  others. 

Ques.  5. — Did  you  send  any  formula  by  which  to  have  the  cer- 
tificate made  out  ? 

Ans.  5. — I  think  I  only  sent  the  name  of  the  vessel  and  the 
Captain,  stating  that  I  wanted  the  certificate,  certifying  the  day 
of  the  arrival  of  the  vessel  in  the  port  of  San  Bias  in  conformity 
with  the  records  kept  in  the  book  of  the  arrivals  in  the  office  of 
the  Captain  of  the  port ;  I  could  not  have  sent  a  form  when  I  did 
not  know  in  what  month  or  on  what  day  she  arrived. 

Ques.  6. — Who  is  this  Mr.  Mendoza,  what  is  his  business  in 
Tepic  ? 

(Question  objected  to  on  the  ground  that  Mr.  Mendoza's  busi- 
ness is  irrelevant.) 

Ans.  6. — He  is  one  of  the  most  respectable  gentleman  in  Tepic  ; 
he  has  stores,  houses  and  ranches. 

DOM0.  DANGLADA. 

Sworn  to  and  subscribed  before  me  this  29th  day  of  December 
1857. 

cutler  McAllister, 

U.  S.  Com. 


Filed  Sept.  6,  1858. 

W.  H.  CHEVERS, 

Clerk. 


752 
DEPOSITION  OF  JOHN  M.  MURPHY. 


Unted  States  District  Court,    ) 
Northern  District  of  California.  J 

On  Appeal  from  U.  S.  Land  Commission. 

Andres  Castillero,     ) 

v*  [ 

The  United  States.      ) 

Question  1. — What  is  your  name  ;  age  ;  and  place  of  residence  ? 

Answer  1. — My  name  is  John  M.  Murphy  ;  my  age  33  years,  and 
I  reside  in  Santa  Clara  County. 

Ques.  2r — Are  you  tne  witness  of  the  same  name  who  has  hereto- 
fore testified  in  this  case  ;  how  long  have  you  resided  in  Santa  Clara 
County,  and  what  public  offices  have  you  held  ? 

Ans.  2. — I  am  the  same  witness ;  I  have  resided  in  Santa  Clara 
County  since  the  year  1845,  some  time  in  May  or  June  ;  I  have  held 
the  offices  of  County  Treasurer,  County  Recorder,  and  am  now  Sheriff 
of  Santa  Clara  County ;  I  have  also  been  Mayor  of  the  city  of  San 
Jose*  in  that  county. 

Ques.  3. — Look  at  the  document  now  shown  you  marked  "  Exhibit 
No.  1."  annexed  to  the  deposition  of  John  M.  Murphy,  purporting  to 
contain  copies  of  certain  official  acts  done  by  Pedro  Chabolla,  Alcalde 
of  San  Jos6,  as  they  appear  of  record  in  a  book  now  in  the  office  of 
the  Recorder  of  Santa  Clara  County,  and  state  whether  you  have 
compared  all  of  the  copies  in  this.  Exhibit  with  their  originals,  and 
whether  the  said  copies  are  exact  and  true.  State  also  whether  you 
are  acquainted  with  the  handwriting  and  signatures  of  said  Pedro 
Chabolla  and  Salvio  Pacheco,  and  whether  their  signatures  to  the 
original  documents  are  genuine  ;  and  further  whether  you  are  ac- 
quainted with  the  book  in  which  said  original  acts  are  written  and 
signed,  and  if  you  know  where  the  said  book  formerly  existed. 

Ans.  3. — I  have  compared  the  papers  in  the  said  Exhibit  with  the 
record  in  County  Recorder's  office  of  Santa  Clara,  and  they  are  a  cor- 
rect copy  of  the  record  ;  I  am  acquainted  with  the  handwriting  and 
signatures  of  said  Chabolla,  and  said  Pacheco;  I  have  seen  them  both 
sign  their  names,  but  of  the  writing  of  Chabolla  I  have  seen  but  little  ; 
I  believe  their  signatures  to  the  said  original  documents  in  the  record, 
are  their  genuine  signatures;  I  know  the  book  referred  to  in  the 
question,  it  existed  formerly  in  the  Alcalde's  office  at  San  Jose  ;  I 


753 

saw  it  in  the  Alcalde's  office  in  1846  and  1847,  I  might  have  seen  it 
there  in  1845  for  all  I  know,  about  that  time  there  were  very  few 
books  kept  in  the  Alcalde's  office. 

Cross-Examined. 

Ques.  1. — Were  you  employed  in  the  Alcalde's  office  in  the  years 
1845,  1846  and  1847,  or  either  of  them,  as  clerk,  or  in  any  other 
public  capacity  ? 

Ans.  1. — I  was  not  employed  in  the  office,  I  acted  as  sheriff  or 
something  of  that  sort,  to  collect  a  license  tax  in  the  year  1846  or 
1847,  I  can't  be  positive  which,  under  the  orders  of  the  Alcalde. 

Ques.  2. — Were  the  orders  of  the  Alcalde  which  you  executed,  or 
your  returns  upon  them,  entered  upon  them,  entered  in  that  book  to 
which  you  have  referred  in  your  direct  examination  ? 

Ans.  2. — They  were  not ;  my  impression  is  that  book  was  kept  en- 
tirely for  recording  grants  of  solares,  and  marks  and  brands  ;  the  Al- 
calde under  whom  I  acted  was  John  Burton,  to  the  best  of  my  recol- 
lection. 

Ques.  3. — Did  you  read  all  the  papers  in  "  Exhibit  No.  1,"  of  which 
you  have  testified  on  your  directed  examination,  in  the  book  of  which 
you  have  testified,  at  the  time  when  you  first  saw  said  book ;  Do  you 
know  of  your  own  knowledge  whether  said  papers  were  then  written 
in  said  book  ? 

Ans.  3. — I  did  not  read  the  papers  in  the  book  at  the  time  referred 
to ;  I  do  not  know  whether  they  were  written  in  the  book  or  not. 

Ques.  4. — Do  you  know  where  that  book  has  been  kept  or  left  all 
the  time  since  1846  ? 

Ans.  4. — I  do  not. 

JNO.  M.  MURPHY. 

Stipulation. 

This  witness  having  been  sworn  in  this  case  on  a  former  day,  it  is 
hereby  stipulated  that  the  foregoing  questions  and  answers  may  be 
offered  and  read  in  evidence  by  the  claimant  on  the  trial  of  this  case, 
with  the  legal  effect  they  would  have  if  the  same  had  been  propounded 
and  given  in  a  deposition  of  the  said  John  M.  Murphy,  regularly  taken, 
subscribed  and  sworn  to  in  open  court,  or  before  a  Commissioner  au- 
thorised to  take  the  same. 

San  Francisco,  Jany.  25th,  1858. 

EDMUND  RANDOLPH, 
P.  DELLA  TORRE, 

U.  S.  Att'y. 
Filed  Jan'y.  26,  1858. 

W.  H.  CHEVERS, 
Dep.  Clerk. 


754 


EXHIBIT   No.  1,  ANNEXED   TO   THE   DEPOSITION   OF 
JOHN  M.  MURPHY, 

Pedro    Chabolla,  Alcalde,   to   Santiago  Estoc — Grant  of  Land — 

Copy— I. 

Pedro  Chabolla  Alcalde  Constitucional  del  Pueblo  $e  S.  Jose*  Gpe. 
actuando  pr.  receptoria  con  dos  testigos  de  asistencia  a  falta  de  escri- 
bano  Publico. 

En  el  espresado  Pueblo  a  los  veinte  dias  del  mes  de  Agosto  de  rail . 
ochocientos  cuarenta  j  seis  en  virtud  de  la  representacion  qe.  el  becino 
de  mi  mando  Santiago  Estoc  hace  y  en  vista  de  la  necesidad  qe.  efec- 
tibamte  presenta  a  nombre  de  su  familia  e"  benido  pr.  los  facultades  qe. 
la  ley  de  colonizacion  reglamt0  antiguo  y  decreto  supr.  que  faculta  k  los 
jueces  respectibos  para  conceder  y  permitir  dentro  de  los  egidos  de  su 
Poblado  por  lo  tanto  permito  y  a  conbenido  con  este  becindario  que  se 
le  midan  las  dos  mil  varas  de  tierra  que  pretende  para  labores  no  per- 
iudicando  la  bendita  Publica  y  que  estos  sean  en  calidad  de  prestamo 
nasta  la  disposicion  6  haprobacion  del  Gov110.  qe.  establesca,  y  habiendo 
pasado  al  pun  to  sitado  de  llamaron  por  testigos  medidores  a  los  C.  C. 
Antonio  Ma.  Pico  y  Eusebio  Galindo  los  que  prometieron  hacer  fielmte 
su  oficio,  y  se  prosedio  a  las  medidas  de  las  dos  mil  varas  pretendidas 
y  ponga  sus  bienes  de  campo  en  sysieno,  de  lo  que  no  habiendo  conti- 
dicion  alguna  quedaron  las  medidas  echas  desde  la  tierra  que  tiene 
consedido  Dn.  Antonio  Sunol  para  afuera  de  su  llanma,  y  por  su  con- 
stancia  se  lo  dio  el  presente  testimenio,  y  el  Juez  del  espresado  Pueblo 
lo  dade  haber  pasado  como  dho.  es  y  que  las  medidas  se  han  echo  con 
la  mayor  legalidad  pr.  los  medidores,  y  para  que  conste  en  todo  tiempo 
y  lugar  lo  firmaron  los  de  asistencia  con  el  presente  Juez.  Be  it  rem- 
bered  that  James  Stakes  has  given  up  this  title  on  conditions  of  get- 
ting one  of  the  "  Pedro  Chabolla  (five)  "  asta  "   Hundred .  acre 

Rubric 

lots  which  was  granted  August  19th,  1847. 

ANTONIO  MA.  PICO. 
asta  Rubric. 

CHAS.  WHITE, 

Clk.  JOHN  BURTON, 


Alcalde. 


State  of  California, 
County  of  Santa  Clara. 


I,  Austin  M.  Thompson  County  Recorder  in  and  for  said  County 
do  hereby  certify  that  the  foregoing  is  a  full  true  and  correct  copy  of 


755 

a  document  recorded  in  my  office  on  pages  7  &  8  in  Book  Number 
One  of  the  Records  of  said  County  of  Santa  Clara. 
,  — ^~  s      In  testimony  whereof  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and 
j  seal  [  affixed  my  official  seal  this  9th  day  of  January  A.  D.  1858. 

( J  AUSTIN  M.  THOMPSON, 

County  Recorder. 
By  Sherman  0.  Houghton, 

Deputy. 


Pedro  Chabolla,  Alcalde,  to  — Copy — 2. 

Pedro  Chaholla  Alcalde  constitucional  del  Pueblo  de  S.  Jose*  Gpe. 
actuando  pr.  receptoria  con  dos  tesiigos  de  asistencia  k  falta  de  escri- 
bano  publico. 

En  el  espresado  Pueblo  &  los  catorce  dias  del  me  sepbre  de  mil  ocho 
cientos  cuarenta  y  seis  en  virtud  de  la  presente  instancia  e  benido  en 
concederle  al  interesado  sincuenta  varas  de  solar  pr.  f rente,  y  cuarenta 
y  dos  de  fondo  ciendo  medidores  testigos  los  C.  C.  Salvio  Pacheco  y 
Antonio  Ma.  Pico  los  cuales  fielmte  midieron  dho.  solar  &  continuacion 
del  que  sigue  para  el  jusgado,  y  para  su  constancia  le  da  el  presente 
testimonio  y  el  Juez  del  espresado  Pueblo  lo  da  de  aber  pasado  como 
dho.  es  de  lo  qe.  diga  pagado  su  correspond16  derecho,  y  traspasado  es- 
te  al  libro  respectibo  de  solares  a  fojas  ocho  lo  que  firmo  el  juez  con  loa 
de  asistencia  e  posesion  es  de  esta. 

PEDRO  CHABOLLA. 

Rubric, 
asst*.  ast\ 

SALVIO  PACHECO. 


State  of  California, 
County  of  Santa  Clara. 


ss. 


I,  Austin  M.  Thompson  County  Recorder  in  the  County  of  Santa 
Clara  in  the  State  aforesaid  do  hereby  certify  that  the  foregoing  is  a 
full  true  and  correct  copy  of  an  instrument  of  writing  on  record  in  my 
office  on  page  8  in  Book  Number  One  of  Deeds,  of  the  Records  of  said 
County  of  Santa  Clara. 

x      In  testimony  whereof  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  affixed 

seal  [  my  official  seal  this  9th  day  of  January  A.  D.  1858. 
— *  >  AUSTIN  M.  THOMPSON, 

County  Recorder. 
By  S.  0.  Houghton, 

Deputy. 


756 

Pedro    Chabolla,  Alcalde,  to  Fra?icisco  Matey — Grant  of  Solar — 

Copy — 3. 

Por  cuanto  a  la  presente  instancia  yo  Juez  constitu1.  Ciudadano  Pe- 
dro Chabolla  4  los  diez  y  seis  dias  del  mes  de  Sbre.  de  mil  ochocientos 
cuarenta  y  seis  havitud  de  no  aber  inconvinte  pa  que  la  persona  del  Sa. 
Franco  Matey,  fabrique  en  este  lugar  e  benido  en  concederle  siento 
cincuenta  varas  de  solar  pr.  frente  y  sincuenta  de  de  fondo  a  continu- 
acion  del  que  tiene  medido  Dn  Pedro  Davis,  siendo  testigos  y  medido- 
res  los  que  subscriben,  quienes  fielinte  au  cumplido  su  oficio  y  para  su 
constancia  se  le  da  el  presente  testimonio  de  le  que  deja  pagado  su  dro. 
correspond16  y  le  doy  firmado. 

PEDRO  CHABOLLA. 

Rubrica. 

SAVIO  PACHECO.        asta. 

Rubrica.  DIEGO  GUILLERMO  WEEKES. 

Rubrica. 

State  of  California,     ) 
County  of  Santa  Clara,  j     * 

I,  Austin  M.  Thompson  County  Recorder  in  and  for  the  County  of 
Santa  Clara  in  the  State  aforesaid  do  hereby  certify  that  the  foregoing 
is  a  full  true  and  correct  copy  of  an  instrument  of  writing  of  record  in 
my  office  on  page  eight  in  Book  Number  One  of  Deeds  of  the  Records 
of  said  County. 

— —  s  In  testimony  whereof  I  have  hereto  set  my  hand  and 
seal  [  affixed  my  official  seal  this  9th  day  of  January  A.  D.  1858. 
— ~  '  A.  M.  THOMPSON, 

County  Recorder. 
By  S.  0.  Houghton, 

Deputy. 


Pedro  Chabolla,  Alcalde,  to  Diego  Gill™  Weekes —  Grant  of  Solar — 

Copy — 4. 

Por  cuanto  k  la  presente  instancia  yo  Juez  constitucional  Ciudadano 
Pedro  Chaboya  4  los  diez  y  siete  dias  del  mes  de  Sbre  de  mil  ocho- 
cientos cuarenta  y  seis  ha  virtud  de  no  haber  inconveniente  para  que 
la  persona  del  Sor.  Diego  Guillermo  Weekes  fabrique  en  este  lugar  4 
benido  en  consederle  cincuenta  varas  de  frente  y  cincuenta  de  fondo 
en  continuasion  de  los  tierros  que  posee*  Don  Jose*  Ma  Flores  asia  el 


757 

Sur  en  donde  puecle  poner  su  casa  y  para  su  constancia  se  le  da  el 
presente  testimonio  de  haver  pasado  como  dho.  es  y  que  los  medidos 
fueron  hechas  fielmte  por  los  medidores  testigos  que  firmaron  con  el 
presente  Juez  y  deja  pagado  sus  derechos  en  este  Jusgado. 
Lo  que  quedo  sentada  en  el  libro  Respectibo  a  fojas  9,  nueve. 

PEDRO  CHABOLLA. 

Rubric. 
asta 

SALVIO  PACHECO.  asta 

Rubric.  VICENTE  JUARES. 

Rubric. 
State  of  California, 
County  of  Santa  Clara. 

I,  Austin  M.  Thompson  County  Recorder  in  and  for  the  County  of 
Santa  Clara  in  the  State  of  California  do  hereby  certify  that  the  fore- 
going is  a  full  true  and  correct  copy  of  an  instrument  of  writing  of 
record  in  my  office  on  page  Nine  in  Book  Number  One  of  the  Records 
of  Santa  Clara  County. 

r  — —  ^      In  testimony  whereof  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and 
]  seal  [  affixed  my  official  seal  this  9th  day  of  January  A.  D.  1858. 

< ]  AUSTIN  M.  THOMPSON, 

County  Recorder. 
By  S.  0.  Houghton, 

Deputy. 


Pedro  Chabolla,  Alcalde,  to  Peter  Davis — Grant  of  Solar — Copy — 5. 

Por  cuanto  ala  presente  instancia,  yo  Juez  constitutional  Ciud0.  Pe- 
dro Chabolla,  4  los  veinte  y  cinco  dias  del  mes  de  Septiembre  de  mil 
ocho  cientos  cuarenta  y  seis,  ha  virtud  de  no  haber  inconvente  para 
que  la  persona  del  Senor  Pedro  Davis,  tomo  sincuenta  varas  de  tierra 
para  favricar  casa  e*  benido  en  consederle  las  sincuenta  varas  de  tierra 
que  pide  en  seguida  del  que  tiene  comprado  &  la  Sra  Rosa  Patron  pr. 
delante  al  sur  con  las  medidas  de  cuarenta  y  tres  de  frente  y  de  fondo 
las  dhas.  sincuenta  siendo  medidores  testigos  los  que  subscriba  y  para 
su  constancia  se  le  da  el  presente  testimonio  lo  que  queda  pasado  al 
libro  de  asientos  a  fojas  nuebe,  y  deja  pagado  su  dho.  en  este  jusgado 
de  mi  cargo. 


SALVIO  PACHECO. 

Rubric  a. 


PEDRO  CHABOLLA. 

Rubrica. 


MARIANO  CASTRO,  f 


758 

State  of  California,     ) 
County  of  Santa  Clara.  ]  ss* 

I,  Austin  M.  Thompson  County  Recorder  in  and  for  the  County  of 
Santa  Clara  in  the  State  of  California  do  hereby  certify  that  the  fore- 
going instrument  of  writing  is  a  full  true  and  correct  copy  of  a  docu- 
ment of  record  in  my  office  on  page  9  in  Book  Number  one  of  Deeds 
of  the  Records  of  the  said  Counta  of  Santa  Clara. 

— —  ^  In  testimony  whereof  I  have  hereto  set  my  hand  and 
seal  [  affixed  my  official  seal  this  9th  day  of  January  A.  D.  1858. 
—  ]  AUSTIN  M.  THOMPSON, 

County  Recorder. 
By  S.  0.  Houghton, 

Deputy. 


Pedro    Chabolla,)   Alcalde,  to   Salvio   Pacheco — Grrant  of  Solar — 

Copy — 6. 

Pueblo  S.  Jose  Gr.  Junto  16  de  1846. 

Por  presentado  la  parte  interesado  en  este  jusgado  pase  k  darle  la 
posesion  qe.  pa.  ley  merese  y  queda  tomada  razon  en  el  libro  respectibo 
de  solares  a  fogas  sinco  qe.  es  en  los  terminos  sigtes. 

Por  cuanto  a  las  facultades  que  la  ley  de  treinta  y  cuatro  me  con- 
fiere :  Yo  Juez  de  2a  nominacion  C°.  Pedro  Chabolla  actuando  por  re- 
septorio  con  dos  testigos  de  asistencia.  En  el  mismo  dia  mes  y  ano 
pase  ala  casa  del  Ciud°.  Salvio  Pacheco  y  tomando  la  medida  del  frente 
de  su  finca  con  otras  mas  Ve.  segun  demuestra  los  simientos  anteriores 
resultan  medidas  beinte  y  sinco  varas  por  frente  y  de  fondo  sesenta  y 
siete  hasta  la  seria  de  guerta,  en  seguida  se  an  medida  siento  once  ba- 
ras  de  dh°.  guerta  de  largo  y  cuarenta  de  frente  por  lo  que  ni  incenti- 
ando  contidicion  alguna  y  ha  satisfacion  del  interesado  se  le  dio  la  po- 
sesion juridica  lo  que  pedio  pa.  testimonio,  y  el  Juez  del  espresado  Pue- 
blo la  da  de  haber  pasado  como  dho.  es  y  que  las  medidas  tanto  de 
solar  como  de  guerta  se  han  hecho  con  la  mayor  legalidad  pa.  las  me- 
didas y  para  que  conste  en  todo  en  todo  tiempo  y  lugar  firmaron  los  de 
asistencia  con  una  serial  de  Cruz,  con  el  presente  Juez. 

PEDRO  CHABOLLA. 

Rubric. 
asta. 

MARIANO  CASTRO,  f  assta.      , 

JOSE  FELIZ.  f 


759 
State  of  California, 


ss 
County  of  Santa  Clara.  ' 

I,  Austin  M.  Thompson  County  Recorder  in  and  for  the  County  of 
Santa  Clara  in  the  State  aforesaid  do  hereby  certify  that  the  foregoing 
is  a  full  true  and  correct  copy  of  an  instrument  of  writing  recorded  in 
Book  Number  One  of  Deeds  on  pages  5,  of  the  Records  of  said 
County. 

.  — —  j      In  testimony  whereof  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and 
}  seal  [  affixed  my  official  seal  this  8th  day  of  January  A.  D.  1858. 

I I  AUSTIN  M.  THOMPSON, 

County  Recorder. 
By  S.  0.  Houghton, 

Deputy. 


Pedro  Chabolla,  Alcalde,  to  — Grant  of  Solar — Copy — 7. 

Pueblo  de  S.  JosS  Agt0  19  de  1846. 
Por  cuanto  4  las  facultades  que  la  ley  de  colonisation  y 
reglamto  antiguo  me  confiere  que  es  respecto  &  solares.  Yo  Juez  de 
1*!.  nomination  C°.  Pedro  Chabolla  actuando  pr.  reseptoria  con  dos 
testigos  de  asistencia  &  falta  de  escribano  publico.  Pase*  en  el  mis- 
mo  dia  mes  y  ano  a  virtud  de  la  presente  instancia  y  se  prosedio  a  la 
medida  de  su  solar  tomando  el  frente  de  veinte  y  cinco  varas  y  cuadro 
con  sesenta  de  fondo  completandosele  dhas.  baras  del  frente  para  el 
otro  lado  del  callegdn  pa.  lo  que  no  aviendo  contradicion  alguna  y  a" 
satisfacion  del  interesado  se  dio  la  posecion  juridica  lo  que  pidio  por 
testimonio  y  el  Juez  del  espresado  Pueblo  la  da  de  aber  pasado  como 
dho.  es  y  que  ks  medidas  de  solar  se  an  echo  con  legalidad*  por  los  me- 
didores  y  para  qe.  conste  en  todo  tiempo  y  lugar  firman  los  testigos  con 
causa  senal  de  Cruz,  con  el  presente  Juez. 

PEDRO  CHABOLLA. 

Rubric. 
asta. 

JOAQN.  MORAGA.  f  asistencia, 

MANUEL  CANTUA. 

State  of  California,     ) 
County  of  Santa  Clara.  J 

I,  Austin  M.  Thompson  County  Recorder  in  and  for  the  County  of 
Santa  Clara  in  the  State  aforeseid  do  hereby  certify  that  the  foregoing 
instrument  of  writing  is  a  full,  true  and  correct  copy  of  a  document  re- 
corded in  Book  Number  One  of  Deeds,  on  page  6,  of  the  records  of 
said  County. 


760 

The  erasure  of  the  words  "  treinta  y  cuatro  "  and  the  interlineation 
of  the  words  "  colonizacion  y  reglamt0  antiguo  "  being  made  upon  the 
record. 

— —  s  In  testimony  whereof  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and 
seal  |  affixed  my  official  seal  this  8th  day  of  January  A.  D.  1858. 
— ~  >  AUSTIN  M.  THOMPSON, 

County  Recorder. 
By  S.  0.  Houghton, 

Deputy. 


Pedro  Chabolla,  Ale*1*,  to  Tomas  Pacheco —  Grant  of  Solar —  Copy — 8. 

Pueblo  de  San  JosS  Gr.  Agosto  18  de  1846. 
Por  cuanto  a  las  facultades  qe.  la  ley  de  treinta  y  cuatro  me  confi- 
ere  yo  juez  de  2a  nominacion  Ciudadano  Pedro  Chabolla  actuando  pr. 
reseptoria  cos  dos  testigos  de  acistencia  &  falta  de  escribano  publico 
En  el  mismo  dia  mes  y  ano  aviendo  pasado  a  la  casa  y  solar  del  C. 
Tomas  Pacheco  y  di  principio  k  las  medidas  de  su  solar  siendo  medido 
por  frente  veinte  y  sinco  varas  y  de  fondo  sesenta  por  lo  no  aviendo 
contradicion  alguna  ya  satisfacion  del  ynteresado  sedio  la  posecion  ju- 
ridica  lo  qe.  pidio  por  testimonio  y  el  Juez  del  espresado  Pueblo  lo  da 
de  aber  pasado  como  dueno  es  y  qe.  las  medidas  del  solar  se  han  echo 
con  legalidad  por  los  medidores,  y  pa.  qe.  conste  en  todo  tiempo  y  lugar 
Firman  los  de  asistencia  con  una  de  cruz  y  el  presente  Juez. 

PEDRO  CHABOLLA. 

Rubric. 


asta. 
JOAQN  MORAGA.  f  asta. 


MANUEL  CANTUA. 


State  of  California,     ) 
County  of  Santa  Clara.  (     * 


I  Austin  M.  Thompson  County  Recorder  in  and  for  the  County  of 
Santa  Clara  in  the  State  aforesaid  do  hereby  certify  that  the  foregoing 
is  a  full  true  and  correct  copy  of  an  instrument  of  record  in  the  Coun- 
ty Recorder's  of  said  County  in  Book  Number  One  on  pages  5  k  6, 
of  the  records  of  said  County. 

,  j      In  testimony  whereof  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and 

]  seal  [  affixed  my  official  seal  this  8th  day  of  January  A,  D.  1858. 
(  — ~  3  AUSTIN  M.  THOMPSON, 

County  Recorder. 
By  S.  0.  Houghton, 

.    Deputy. 


761 

State  of  California, 


County  of  Santa  Clara.  l 

On  this  Eleventh  day  of  January  A  D  1858  before  me  Austin  M 
Thompson  a  Notary  Public  within  and  for  the  County  aforesaid  per- 
sonally came  John  M  Murphy  who  being  duly  sworn  deposes  and  says. 
That  he  is  well  acquainted  with  the  signature  of  Pedro  Chabolla  who 
was  2d  Alcalde  of  the  Pueblo  de  San  Jose  de  Guadalupe  in  the  year 
1846 — that  he  has  examined  the  original  record  book  of  the  County  of 
Santa  Clara  from  which  the  annexed  copies  Nos  1  to  8  inclusive  were 
copied  and  certified  to  by  the  county  recorder  of  said  Santa  Clara 
County,  and  that  he  believes  the  said  signatures  of  Pedro  Chabolla 
alcalde  aforesaid  are  genuine  and  true  as  they  appear  on  said  record 
book  No  1  of  the  said  records  of  Santa  Clara  County. 

JNO.  M  MURPHY. 

,  «-m —  *      Subscribed  and  sworn  to  before  me  this  the  11th  day  of 

J  seal  [  January  AD  1858. 

'  — i —  '      Witness  my  hand  and  official  seal, 

AUSTIN  M  THOMPSON, 

Notary  Public, 

Filed  Jan'y  26, 1858. 

W.  H.  CHEVERS, 

Dep.  Clerk. 


TRANSLATION  OF  "  EXHIBIT  NO.  1." 

Pedro  Chavolla,  Constitutional  Alcalde  of  the  Pueblo  of  San  Jose* 
Guadalupe,  acting  ex  officio  with  two  witnesses  of  assistance  for  want 
of  a  Notary  Public. 

In  the  said  Pueblo  on  the  20th  day  of  the  month  of  August,  1846, 
in  virtue  of  the  representation  of  the  citizen  James  Estoc,  and  in  view 
of  the  necessity  which  he  effectively  presents  in  the  name  of  his  family, 
I  have  by  the  powers  which  the  laws  of  colonization  formerly  in  force, 
and  the  superior  decree  which  empowered  the  respective  magistrates 
to  grant  and  permit  witnin  the  common  lands  ot  their  population, 
therefore  permitted,  and  it  has  been  agreed  with  the  community,  that 
there  be  measured  the  two  thousand  varas  of  land  which  he  asks  for 
cultivation,  without  prejudicing  the  said  public,  and  understanding  that 
it  may  be  in  the  nature  of  a  loan,  until  the  disposition  or  approval 
which  the  Government  may  establish,  and  having  passed  to  the  said 
point,  there  were  called  as  witnesses  of  the  measurement,  citizens  An- 
56 


762 

tonio  Maria  Pico  and  Eusebio  Galindo,  who  promised  faithfully  to  per- 
form their  office,  and  proceeded  to  the  measurement  of  the  two  thou- 
sand varas  asked  for,  and  he  placed  his  stock,  of  which  there  being  no 
opposition,  they  left  the  measurements  made  from  that  which  Don  An- 
tonio Suiiol  has  granted  to  him  outside  of  his  plain,  and  in  proof  of 
which  I  gave  him  this  present  testimony,  and  the  justice  of  said  Pueblo 
give  it  as  having  passed  as  aforesaid,  and  as  the  measurements  arc 
made  with  the  greatest  legality  by  the  measurers,  and  as  a  testimony 
for  all  time  and  place,  those  of  assistance  signed  it  with  the  present 
magistrate. 

PEDRO  CHAVOLLA. 
Assisting :  Assisting : 

Antonio  Maria  Pico.  Chas.  White. 


Pedro  Chavolla,  Constitutional  Alcalde  of  the  Pueblo  of  San  Jose* 
Guadalupe,  acting  ex  officio  with  two  witnesses  of  assistance  for  want 
of  a.  Notary  Public. 

In  the  said  Pueblo  on  the  14th  day  of  the  month  of  September, 
1846,  in  virtue  of  the  present  proceeding,  I  have  granted  to  the  party 
interested  a  lot  of  fifty  varas  front  by  forty-two  deep,  being  measurers 
the  witnesses  citizens  Salvio  Pacheco  and  Antonio  Maria  Pico,  who 
faithfully  measured  said  lot  to  the  continuation  of  that  which  follows 
for  the  Court,  and  in  proof  of  it  the  present  testimony  is  given,  and 
the  Magistrate  of  the  said  Pueblo  gives  it  as  having  passed  as  is 
said,  the  corresponding  fees  are  paid,  and  this  transferred  to  the  res- 
pective book  of  lots  on  the  leaf  8,  which  the  Magistrate  signs  with 
those  of  assistance,  and  possession  is  of  this. 

PEDRO  CHAVOLLA. 

Of  Asssistance  :  Of  Assistance  : 

Salvio  Pacheco. 


Whereas,  at  the  present  instance  of  the  Constitutional  Magistrate, 
citizen  Pedro  Chavolla,  on  the  16th  day  of  the  month  of  September 
1846,  there  appears  no  objection  that  the  person  of  Francisco  Matez 
may  build  in  this  place,  I  have  granted  a  solar  of  fifty  varas  front  and 
fifty  in  depth,  in  continuation  of  that  which  Don  Pedro  Davis  has 
measured,  being  witnesses  and  measurers  those  who  subscribe,  and 
who  faithfully  performed  their  office,  and  for  its  proof  the  present  tes- 
timony is  given,  that  his  corresponding  fees  all  paid,  and  I  give  this 


ligned. 

PEDRO  CHAVOLLA, 

Of  assistance : 

Of  assistance  : 

Salvio  Pacheco. 

Diego  Guillermo  Weeks. 

763 

Whereas,  at  the  present  instance  of  the  Constitutional  Magistrate, 
citizen  Pedro  Chavolla,  the  17th  day  of  the  month  of  September  1846, 
in  virtue  of  there  being  no  objection  that  the  person  of  Seiior  Don 
Diego  Guillermo  Weeks  may  build  in  this  place,  I  have  granted  to 
him  fifty  varas  front  and  fifty  in  depth,  in  continuation  of  those  which 
Don  Jose'  Ma.  Flores  has  to  the  south  where  he  can  put  his  house,  and 
for  the  proof  of  it  there  is  given  the  present  testimony  of  having  passed 
as  is  said,  and  that  the  measurements  were  faithfully  made  by  the 
measurers,  the  witnesses  who  sign  with  the  present  Magistrate,  and 
the  fees  are  paid  in  this  Court.  It  is  recorded  in  the  respective  book, 
at  leaf  nine  (9.) 

PEDRO  CHAVOLLA. 

Of  assistance  :  Of  assistance  : 

Salvio  Pacheco.  Vicente  Juares. 


Pueblo  of  S.  Jose  Guadalupe,  June  16th,  1846. 

The  party  interested  having  presented  in  this  Court,  I  proceeded  to 
give  him  the  possession  of  which  by  law  he  is  entitled,  and  note  is 
taken  in  the  respective  book  of  lots  at  leaf  5,  which  is  in  the  following 
terms : 

Whereas,  by  the  powers  which  the  law  of  thirty-four  confers  on  me, 
I  the  Magistrate  of  2nd  nomination,  citizen  Pedro  Chavolla  acting  ex 
officio,  with  two  witnesses  of  assistance. 

In  the  same  day,  month  and  year  I  passed  to  the  house  of  citizen 
Salvio  Pacheco,  and  taking  the  measurement  from  the  front  of  his  im- 
provement with  others  more  old,  as  the  anterior  masonry  shows,  their 
result  measurement  twenty-five  varas  front  and  sixty-seven  in  depth, 
to  the  garden  enclosure,  in  continuation  there  are  measured  one  hun- 
dred and  eleven  varas  of  said  garden  in  length,  and  forty  of  front,  to 
which  there  being  no  objection,  and  the  party  interested  being  satisfied 
the  juridical  possession  which  was  asked  for  is  given  for  testimony,  and 
the  Magistrate  of  the  said  Pueblo  gave  it  as  having  passed  as  is  said, 
and  which  the  measurements  as  well  of  the  lot  as  of  the  garden  are 
made  with  the  greatest  legality,  for  the  measurements  and  for  proof 
in  all  time  and  place  those  of  assistance  sign  with  the  mark  of  the  cross 
with  the  present  Magistrate. 

PEDRO  CHAVOLLA. 

Of  assistance  :  Of  assistance  : 

Mariano  Castro  f  Jose  Feliz  f 


764 
Pueblo  of  San  Jose,  August  19th,  1846. 

Whereas,  by  the  powers  which  the  law  of  colonization  and  the  ancient 
regulations  confer  on  me  with  respect  to  lots,  I  the  Magistrate  of  the 
second  nomination,  citizen  Pedro  Chavolla,  acting  ex  officio  with  two 
witnesses  of  assistance  for  want  of  a  notary  public. 

I  passed  in  the  same  day,  month  and  year,  in  virtue  of  the  present 
instance,  and  proceeded  to  the  measurement  of  his  lot  taking  the  front 
of  twenty-five  varas  and  a  quarter  by  sixty  in  depth,  the  said  varas 
of  front  being  completed  by  the  other  side  of  the  alley,  by  reason  of 
their  being  no  opposition  and  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  party  interested, 
the  juridical  possession  which  is  asked  is  given  for  testimony,  and  the 
Magistrate  of  the  said  Pueblo  gives  it  as  having  passed  as  is  said,  that 
the  measurements  of  the  lot  are  made  with  legality  by  the  measurers, 
and  as  a  proof  of  it  in  all  time  and  place  the  witnesses  sign  with  the 
mark  of  the  cross,  with  the  present  Magistrate. 

PEDRO  CHAYOLLA. 

Of  assistance :  Of  assistance  : 

Joaquin  Muraga  ♦  Manl.  Cantua  f 


Pueblo  of  San  Jose  Guadalupe,  August  18th,  1846. 

Whereas,  by  the  powers  which  the  law  of  thirty-four  confers  on  me, 
I  the  Magistrate  of  second  nomination,  citizen  Pedro  Chavolla,  acting 
ex  officio,  with  two  witnesses  of  assistance  for  want  of  a  Notary  Public. 

In  the  same  day,  month  and  year,  having  passed  to  the  House  and 
lot  of  citizen  Tomas  Pacheco,  and  began  the  measurements  of  his  lot 
being  measured  by  the  front  twenty-five  varas,  and  in  depth  sixty, 
there  being  no  opposition  and  the  party  interested  being  satisfied,  the 
iuridical  possession  which  was  asked  for  is  given  for  testimony,  and 
the  Magistrate  of  the  said  Pueblo  gives  it  as  having  passed  to  him  as 
owner,  and  that  the  measurements  of  the  lot  were  made  with  legality 
by  the  measurers,  and  as  a  proof  in  all  time  and  place,  those  of  assist- 
ance sign  with  a  cross,  and  the  present  Magistrate. 

PEDRO  CHAYOLLA. 

Of  assistance  :  Of  assistance  : 

Joaquin  Muraga  f  Manuel  Cantua  f 


Filed,  January  26th,  1858. 


W.  H.  CHEYERS, 

Dep.  Clerk. 


765 


DEPOSITION  OF  RAFAEL  SANCHEZ. 

United  States  District  Court,  ) 
Northern  District  California.    ) 

San  Francisco,  Jan'y  30, 1858. 

On  this  day,  before  Geo.  Pen  Johnston,  a  Commissioner  of  the 
United  States  for  the  District  of  California,  duly  authorized  to 
administer  oaths,  <fcc,  &c,  came  Rafael  Sanchez,  a  witness  pro- 
duced on  behalf  of  the  Claimant,  in  Case  No.  420,  being  an  ap- 
peal from  the  Board  of  Commissioners  to  ascertain  and  settle 
Private  Land  Claims  in  the  State  of  California,  in  Case  No.  366, 
on  the  Docket  of  the  said  Board  of  Commissioners,  and  was  duly 
sworn  and  testified  as  follows  : 

Present. — A.-  C.  Peachy,  Esq.,  for  Claimant ;  United  States 
District  Attorney,  by  E.  Randolph,  Esq.,  for  the  United  States. 

Questions  by  A.  C.  Peachy,  Esq. 

Ques.  1. — What  is  your  name,  age,  and  place  of  residence  ? 

Ans.  1. — My  name  is  Rafael  Sanchez  ;  I  am  fifty-one  years  of 
age  ;  and  reside  in  Monterey. 

Ques.  2. — Do  you  know  Manuel  Castro  ? 

Ans.  2. — I  do  ;  I  have  known  him  since  the  year  1843. 

Ques.  3. — Do  you  know  what  office  Manuel  Castro  held  in  the 
year  1845  ? 

Ans.  3. — He  was  then  Prefect  of  the  Second  District. 

Ques.  4 — Are  you  acquainted  with  the  signature  and  rubrics  of 
Manuel  Castro  ? 

Ans.  4. — I  know  his  signature  and  rubric. 

Ques.  5. — Examine  the  Document  now  shown  you,  being  one  of 
those  this  day  produced  by  Chapman  Yates,  Clerk  of  the  city  of 
San  Jose*,  on  his  examination  in  this  case  before  Cutler  McAllis- 
ter, Esq.,  United  States  Commissioner,  said  document  being  the 
original,  of  which  "  Exhibit  No.  2,  annexed  to  the  deposition  of 
Chapman  Yates  "  is  a  copy,  and  state,  if  the  signature  and  rubrics 
of  Manuel  Castro,  thereto,  is  the  genuine  signature  of  said  Cas- 
tro. 

Ans.  5. — I  have  already  said  that  that  signature  is  the  genuine 
signature  of  Manuel  Castro ;  it  is  his  genuine  signature  and  ru- 
bric. 

RAFAEL  SANCHEZ. 


766 

Sworn  to  and  subscribed  before  me  this  30th  day  of  January 
1858. 

GEO.  PEN  JOHNSTON. 

U.  S.  Com. 


DEPOSITION  OF  Wm.  McCUTCHIN. 

United  States  District  Court,  ) 
Northern  District  California.     ) 

San  Francisco,  Jan'y.  30, 1858. 

On  this  day,  before  Cutler  McAllister,  a  Commissioner  of  the 
United  States  for  the  Northern  District  of  California,  duly  au- 
thorized to  administer  oaths,  &c,  &c,  came  William  McCutchin, 
a  witness  produced  on  behalf  of  the  Claimants  in  Case  No.  420, 
being  an  appeal  from  the  Board  of  Commissioners  to  ascertain 
and  settle  the  Private  Land  Claims  in  the  State  of  California,  in 
Case  No.  466  on  the  Docket  of  the  said  Board  of  Commissioners, 
and  was  duly  sworn  and  testified  as  follows  : 

Present. — A.  C.  Peachy,  for  Claimant ;  United  States  Attor- 
ney by  E.  Randolph. 

Questions  by  A.  C.  Peachy,  Esq. 

Ques.  1. — Your  name,  age  and  place  of  residence  ?  How  long 
have  you  resided  in  California  ?  Are  you  acquainted  with  Anto- 
nio Maria  Pico,  Pedro  Chabolla,  JosC  Fernandez,  and  James  Al- 
exander Forbes  or  any  of  them  ;  if  yea,  how  long  have  you  known 
them? 

Ans.  1. — William  McCutchin  ;  I  am  42  years  of  age  ;  I  reside 
in  San  Jose,  Santa  Clara  County  ;  I  have  resided  in  California 
since  13th  of  Oct.,  1846  ;  I  arrived  at  Sutter's  Fort  that  day  ;  I 
know  Antonio  Maria  Pico,  Pedro  Chabolla,  Jose*  Fernandez  and 
James  Alexander  Forbes  ;  I  have  known  them  all  since  the  early 
part  of  1849. 

Ques.  2. — Are  you  acquainted  with  the  hand  writings  and  signa- 
tures of  the  said  Pico,  Chabolla,  Fernandez  and  Forbes?  if  yea, 
state  your  means  of  knowledge. 

Ans.  2. — I  am  acquainted  with  the  signatures  and  hand-writing 
of  Pico,  Chabolla,  Fernandez  and  Forbes  ;  I  have  seen  them  all 
write,  and  sign  their  names  ;  I  have  transacted  business  with  all 
of  them. 


767 

Ques.  3. — Look  at  the  document  now  shown  you,  being  one  of 
the  documents  this  day  produced  by  Chapman  Yates,  Clerk  of 
the  City  of  San  Jose'  on  his  examination  in  this  case,  before  Cut- 
ler McAllister,  Esq.,  United  States  Commissioner,  the  said  docu- 
ment being  the  original  of  which  "  Exhibit  No.  1,  annexed  to  the 
deposition  of  Chapman  Yates  "  is  a  copy,  and  state,  if  you  know 
in  whose  hand-writing  is  the  body  of  said  instrument,  and  whether 
the  signatures  and  rubrics  of  Antonio  M.  Pico,  and  Pedro  Cha- 
bolla,  thereon  appearing,  are  the  genuine  signatures  of  the  said 
Pico  and  Chabolla. 

Ans.  3. — My  impression  is  that  the  body  of  the  document  was 
written  by  Jose  Fernandez  ;  the  signatures  and  rubrics  thereon 
appearing,  are  the  genuine  signatures  and  rubrics  of  Pico  and 
Chabolla. 

Ques.  4. — Look  at  the  document  now  shown  you,  being  one  of 
the  documents  produced  by  the  said  Yates  as  described  in  question 
3,  the  same  being  the  original  of  which,"  Exhibit  No.  3,  annexed 
to  the  deposition  of  Chapman  Yates/7  is  a  copy,  and  state,  if  you 
know  in  whose  hand-writing  is  the  body  of  said  instrument,  and 
whether  the  signature  of  James  Alexander  Forbes  thereto,  is  the 
genuine  signature  of  said  Forbes. 

Ans.  4. — I  believe  the  body  of  the  instrument  to  be  in  the 
hand-writing  of  James  Alexander  Forbes,  and  the  signature 
thereto,  his  genuine  signature. 

WM.  McCUTCHIN. 

Sworn  to  and  subscribed  before  me  this  30th  day  of  January 

1858. 

cutler  McAllister, 

U.  S.  Com. 


768 

SUBPCENA. 

UNITED  STATES  OF  AMERICA. 

State  op  California, 
County  op  San  Francisco. 

In  the  Circuit  Court  of  the  United  States  for  the  Districts  of 
California,  in  and  for  the  Northern  District. 

The  United  States     ) 

Andres  Castillero.     ) 

The  President  of  the  United  States  of  America,  To  Mr.  Yates  of 
San  Jose',  and  bring  with  you,  1st,  a  letter  from  J.  A.  Forbes  to 
John  Burton,  Alcalde,  dated  14th  August,  1847  ;  2d,  an  official 
communication  from  Man'l  Castro,  to  the  Alcalde  of  San  Jose*, 
dated  loth  Deer.  1845  ;  3d,  an  inventory  of  papers  and  other 
things  purporting  to  be  an  original,  signed  by  A.  M.  Pico,  and 
receipted  for  by  Pedro  Chabolla,  on  2d  January,  1846,  said 
papers  being  in  the  Archives  of  San  Jos6,  Greeting  : 

You  are  hereby  required,  That  all  and  singular  business  and  ex- 
cuses being  set  aside,  you  appear  and  attend  before  C.  McAllister,  a 
Commissioner  of  the  Circuit  Court  of  the  United  States  for  the  Dis- 
tricts of  California,  at  the  Court  House  in  the  City  of  San  Francisco, 
on  the  30th  day  of  January,  A.  D.  1858,  at  one  o'clock,  P.M.,  then 
and  there  to  testify  in  the  above  stated  cause  now  pending  in  the  District 
Court  of  the  U.  S.  on  the  part  of  the  above  named  defendant.  And  for 
a  failure  to  attend  you  will  be  deemed  guilty  of  a  contempt  of  Court, 
and  liable  to  pay  all  losses  and  damages  sustained  thereby  to  the  party 
aggrieved. 

"Witness,  the  Hon.  Roger  B.  Taney,  Chief  Justice  of  the  Supreme 

.  n      Court  of  the  United  States  of  America,  this  28th  day  of 

seal  [      January,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight 
< — i —  *      hundred  and   fifty-eight,  and  of  our  Independence  the 

eighty-second. 
Attest,  GEO.  PEN  JOHNSTON, 

Clerk, 
[seal]  By  CUTLER  McALLISTER, 

Dep.  Clerk. 


769 

I  hereby  certify  that  this  subpoena  was  received  on  the  28th  day  of 
January,  1858,  and  served  personally  by  delivering  a  copy  to  Chap- 
man Yates,  in  the  city  of  San  Francisco,  on  the  30th  day  of  January, 
1858. 
San  Francisco,  Jan.  30, 1858. 

P.  L.  SOLOMON, 

U.  S.  Marshal, 
By  JOHN  H.  WILLIAMS, 

Deputy. 


DEPOSITION  OF  CHAPMAN  YATES. 


United  States  District  Court, 
Northern  District  of  California. 


ss. 


San  Francisco,  Jan.   30, 1858. 

On  this  day,  before  Cutler  McAllister,  a  Commissioner  of  the  United 
States  for  the  Northern  District  of  California,  duly  authorized  to  ad- 
minister oaths,  &c,  &c,  came  Chapman  Yates,  a  witness  produced  on 
behalf  of  the  Claimant,  in  Case  No.  320,  being  an  appeal  from  the 
Board  of  Commissioners  to  ascertain  and  settle  the  Private  Land 
Claims  in  the  State  of  California,  in  Case  No.  466  on  the  Docket  of 
the  said  Board  of  Commissioners,  and  was  duly  sworn  and  testified  as 
follows  : 

Present  :  A.  C.  Peachy,  for  Claimant ;  The  United  States  At- 
torney, by  E.  Randolph. 

Questions  by  A.  C.  Peachy,  Esq. 

Question  1. — Your  name,  age,  and  plaee  of  residence  ? 

Answer  1. — Chapman  Yates  ;  I  am  48  years  of  age  ;  I  reside  in 
San  Jose',  Santa  Clara  County. 

Ques.  2 — What  office  do  you  hold  at  present  ? 

Ans.  2. — I  am  Clerk  of  the  Board  of  Trustees  of  the  City  of  San 
Jose',  City  Clerk. 

Ques.  3. — Produce  the  documents  which  you  have  been  directed 
by  a  subpoena  to  bring  with  you,  and  state  where  you  obtained  them  ; 
where  they  belong ;  in  whose  charge  and  custody  they  are,  and  wheth- 


770 

er  you  can  permit  said  documents  to  be  filed  in  this  Court   as  evi- 
dence in  this  case,  or  are  obliged  to  retain  them  in  your  custody. 

Ans.  3. — I  produce  the  documents  referred  to  in  said  subpoena  ;  I 
obtained  them  from  the  archives  of  the  City  of  San  Jose* ;  they  belong 
in  the  archives  of  that  city ;  they  are  in  my  charge  and  custody  as 
Clerk  of  the  City  of  San  Jose* ;  I  am  not  authorized  to  let  them  go 
out  of  my  custody  at  all,  or  to  let  any  one  examine  them  except  in 
my  presence. 

(The  Counsel  for  the  Claimants  offers  to  annex  to  this  deposition 
three  documents  which  are  copies  of  the  three  documents  produced 
by  the  witness  as  stated  in  the  preceding  answer,  said  copies  being 
marked  respectively,  "  Exhibit  No.  1,  Annexed  to  the  deposition 
of  Chapman  Yates."  "  Exhibit  No.  2,  Annexed  to  the  deposition 
of  Chapman  Yates,"  and  "  Exhibit  No.  3,  Annexed  to  the  depo- 
sition of  Chapman  Yates,"  which  the  Attorney  for  the  U.  S.  admits 
to  be  accurate  and  exact  copies  of  the  originals.) 

Ques.  4. — To  what  part  of  the  archives  of  the  City  of  San  Jose* 
do  the  documents  which  you  have  produced  belong  ;  did  they  formerly 
constitute  a  part  of  the  archives  of  any  other  office ;  if  yea,  what 
office  ? 

Ans.  4. — They  are  papers  that  have  accumulated  under  the  gov- 
ernment of  Alcaldes  of  the  Pueblo  ;  they  were  delivered  to  me  by  the 
Board  of  Trustees  as  part  of  the  archives  of  the  city. 

Cross-Examination. 

Ques.  1. — Look  at  the  document  marked  "  Exhibit  No.  4,  an- 
nexed to  the  deposition  of  Chapman  Yates,"  and  state  whether  the 
certificate,  signature  and  seal,  is  your  certificate  and  signature,  and 
the  seal  of  the  city  of  San  Jose*. 

Ans.  1. — That  is  my  certificate  and  signature,  and  the  seal  of  the 
City  of  San  Jose*,  the  original  of  this  paper  exists  in  the  same  archi- 
ves as  the  other  papers  of  which  copies  are  annexed  to  this  deposition, 
on  the  part  of  the  claimant ;  this  is  a  true  and  correct  copy  of  the 
original  in  my  possession  in  the  archives  of  San  Jose*  ;  the  original  of 
this  paper  could  not  go  out  of  my  custody ;  this  paper  purports  to  be 
an  inventory  of  effects  and  documents  found  in  the  office  of  the  Al- 
calde, and  delivered  to  the  new  Judge  Don  Juan  Burton,  on  the  10th 
Nov.  1846. 

Ques.  2. — Look  at  the  paper  now  shown  you  ;  state  whether  the 
certificate,  signature  and  seal,  are  genuine  ;  what  the  contents  of  this 
document  are  ;  where  you  found  it ;  whether  it  is  a  true  copy  of  the 
original,  &c. 


771 

(Said  paper  is  annexed  to  this  deposition  marked  "  Exhibit  No.  5, 
annexed  to  the  deposition  of  Chapman  Yates.") 

Ans.  2. — That  is  my  certificate  and  signature,  and  the  seal  is  the 
seal  of  the  City  of  San  Jose* ;  it  is  an  extract  from  the  minutes  of  the 
Common  Council  of  San  Jose' ;  I  found  the  original  among  the  archi- 
ves of  the  City  of  San  Jose' ;  this  is  a  true  copy  of  the  original ;  this 
is  a  public  document,  and  I  cannot  part  with  the  possession  of  it. 

Ques.  3. — Look  at  the  paper  now  shown  you,  marked  "  Exhibit  No. 
6,  annexed  to  the  deposition  of  Chapman  Yates,' '  and  say  what  paper 
it  is. 

Ans.  3. — It  is  a  copy  of  an  Alcalde's  record  in  the  archives  of  the 
City  of  San  Jose',  now  under  my  charge ;  it  is  a  true  and  exact  copy 
certified  by  myself,  and  I  believe  Burton  was  Alcalde  at  that  time  ; 
the  originals  are  public  papers,  which  cannot  be  allowed  to  come  out 
of  my  office,  and  therefore  they  cannot  be  filed  in  this  case. 

Ques.  4. — Look  at  the  papers  now  shown  you,  marked  relatively, 
"  Exhibits  No's.  7,  8,  9,  and  10,  annexed  to  the  deposition  of  Chap- 
man Yates,"  and  say  what  papers  they  are. 

Ans.  4. — I  have  examined  all  the  papers,  and  they  are  correct 
copies  of  original  documents  filed  in  the  archives  of  San  Jose*,  now 
under  my  charge  ;  they  are  certified  copies  made  out  by  myself ;  the 
originals  are  public  papers,  which  cannot  be  allowed  to  come  out  of 
my  office,  and  therefore  they  cannot  be  filed  in  this  case. 

(Counsel  for  the  Claimant  offers  in  evidence  "  Exhibits  Nos.  1,  2, 
and  3,  annexed  to  the  deposition  of  Chapman  Yates.") 

(Counsel  for  the  U.  S.  offers  in  evidence  "  Exhibits  4,  5,  6,  7,  8, 
9,  10,  annexed  to  the  deposition  of  Chapman  Yates,"  together  with 
translations  of  Exhibits  7,  8,  9,  10.) 

CHAPMAN  YATES. 

Sworn  to  and  subscribed  before  me,  this  30th  day  of  January,  A. 
D.  1858. 

~ — .  cutler  McAllister, 

J  seal  J  U.  S.  Commr. 

Filed  Sep.  6, 1858, 

W.  H.  CHEYERS, 

Clerk. 


772 


OFFER  OF  EVIDENCE. 

United  States  District  Court, 
Northern  District  of  California. 

The  United  States,     )  n.  S.  Dist.  Ct.  420. 
Andreas  Castillero.    )    *    * 

Attorney  for  the  United  States  offers  in  evidence  in  the  above 
cause  the  following  documents  : 

"  Espediente  and  Grant,  (and  Translation)  of  Justo  Larios." 

"  Espediente  of  Jose*  R.  Berreyesa.', 

"  Translation  of  Espediente  of  Jose*  R.  Berreyesa." 

Translation  of  "  R.  No.  1." 

Translation  of  "  R.  No.  2." 

"  Translation  of  R.  No.  9,  annexed  to  the  deposition  of  H.  C. 
Melone." 

"  Translation  of  A.  P.  L.,  annexed  to  deposition  of  Sunol,  Noriega 
and  Lewis." 

"  Translation  of  G.  M.  Y.  annexed  to  the  deposition  of  Geo.  M. 
Yoell." 

"  Translation  of  J.  W.  W.  annexed  to  the  deposition  of  J.  W. 
Weekes." 


San  Francisco,  Jan.  30, 1858. 


Filed  Jan.  30,1858. 


cutler  McAllister, 

U.  S.  Commr. 


W.  H.  CHEVERS, 

Dep.  Clerk. 


773 


ESPEDIENTE  OF  JUSTO  LARIOS. 

Uspediente  promovido  por  el  ciudadano  Justo  Larios  en  solicitud  del 
parage  conocido  con  el  nombre  de  Canada  de  los  "  Capitancillos" 

1842. 

294. 

jSello  tercero  Dos  Reales. 

Habilitado  provisionalmte  por  la  Aduana  maritima  del  puerto  de 
Monterey,  en  el  departamento  de  las  Californias  para  los  anos  de  mil 
ochocientos  cuarenta  y  mil  ocho  cientos  cuarenta  y  uno. 

ANTONIO  MA.  OSIO. 

ALVARADO. 


Rehabilitado  por  la  misma  para  el  ano  de  mil  ocho  cientos 
cuarenta  y  dos. 

ANTONIO  MA.  OSIO. 
ALVARADO. 

Sor  Prefecto  del  1eb  Distrito: 

de^842teHlbiendeose  a*  Justo  Larios  ante  V.  S.  con  el  debido  respecto 
5ipEfcStoTjS£pS  dice  qe  haviendo  comprado  a  Leandro  Galindo  una 
SrenoqliTpreTnde^I  casa  qe  tenia  situado  en  el  parage  conocido  con  el 
5t2SSjoSdK2a<£  nombre  de  la  Canada  de  los  Capitancillos,  me  cedio 
cretodeconcesion.  el  ^erecho  qe  tenia  al  terreno  pr  consecion  del  Y.  A. 
del  P.  de  S.  Jose*  Guadalupe  como  consta  en  el  espedte  que  presents 
en  el  ano  de  1836  al  E.  J.  Gobernador  6  igualmte  en  otro  qe  presente 
el  afio  de  40  al  Sor  D.  Jose  Maria  Villa,  en  cargado  entonces  de  la 
prefectura  de  ler  Distrito  y  como  ambos  espedientes  han  sido  pr  des- 
gracia  estraviados,  suplico  a.  V.  S.  se  digne  admitir  este  y  conceder 
me  el  terreno  qe  solicito  y  hoy  poseo  desde  el  ano  de  1836,  declaran- 
dome  la  propiedad.  Los  limites  de  dtho  sitio,  son  desde  los  linderos 
de  Sta  Clara  hasta  el  Corral  llamado  del  finado  Macario.  Por  tanto, 
A.  V.  S.  suplico  se  digne  acceder  a  esta  mi  peticion  en  lo  qe  recibire 
gracia  y  merced.  A  compano  a  V.  el  diseno  del  sitio  qe  pretendo. 
Monterey,  Junio  15  de  1842. 

EL  SUPLICANTE. 


774 

Sello  tercero,  dos  Reales. 

Habilitado  provisionalmente  por  la  Aduana  maritima  del  puerto 
de  Monterey  en  el  departamento  de  las  Californias  para  los  anos  de 
mil  ochocientos  cuarenta  y  mil  ochocietos  cuarenta  y  uno. 

ANTONIO  MA.  OSIO. 

ALVARADO. 


Rehabilitado  por  la  misma,  para  el  ano  de  mil  ochocientos 
cuarenta  y  dos. 

ANTONIO  MA.  OSIO. 
ALVARADO. 

Monterey  16  de  Junio  de  1842. 

Vista  la  peticion  con  que  da  principio  este  Espediente  el  aveni- 
miento  qe  tuvieran  los  colindantes  Justo  Larios  y  Jose*  Reyes  Berre- 
yesa  con  presencia  del  Prefecto  y  Juez  de  Paz.  de  este  lugar,  con 
todo  lo  demas  que  se  tuvo  presente  y  ver  convenio  de  conformidad 
con  las  leyes  y  reglamentos  de  la  materia  declar6  al  mencionado 
Justo  Larios  dueno  en  propriedad  de  una  parte  del  terreno  nombrado 
Canada  de  los  Capitancillos,  colindante  con  la  Sierra,  con  el  arroyo 
seco  por  la  parte  del  establecimiento  de  Sta  Clara  y  con  el  Rancho  del 
Ciudadano  Jose*  Reyes  Berreyesa,  el  cual  tiene  por  lindero  el  angulo 
que  forma  el  arroyo  seco  y  el  de  las  Alamitos  rumbo  al  Sur  la  falda 
de  la  loma,  cituada  en  el  centro  de  la  Canada  asia  el  Este  y  hasta 
llegar  a  la  Sierra.  Librese  el  correspondiente  despacho  tomese  razon 
en  el  libro  respectivo  y  dirijase  este  Espedte  a  la  Exma  Junta  depar- 
tamental  para  su  aprobacion.  El  Senor  Du.  Juan  B.  Alvarado. 
Gobernador  constitutional  del  departamt0  de  Californias  asi  lo  mando, 
decreto  y  firmo  de  que  doy  fe. 


Juan  B.  Alvarado,  Gobernador  constitucional  del  departamento  de 
las  Californias.  Por  cuanto  el  Cno  Justo  Larios  ha  pretendido  para 
su  beneficio  personal  y  el  de  su  familia  el  terreno  conocido  con  el 
nombre  de  los  Capitancillos,  colindante  con  la  Sierra,  con  el  arroyo 
seco  pr  la  parte  del  Establecimiento  de  Sta  Clara  y  con  el  Rancho  del 
ciudadano  Jose'  R.  Berreyesa  el  cual  tiene  por  lindero  el  Angulo  que 
forma  el  arroyo  seco  y  el  de  las  Alamitos,  rumbo  al  Sur  la  falda  de  la 


775 

Loma  situada  en  el  sentro  de  la  Canada  asi  al  Este  hasta  llegar  k  la 
Sierra,  practicadas  previamte  las  diligencias  y  averiguaciones  con 
cernientes  segun  lo  dispuesto  por  leyes  y  reglamentos  de  la  materia 
Usando  de  las  facultades  que  son  me  conferidas  a  nombre  de  la  Na- 
tion Mejicana  he  venido  en  concederle  el  terreno  mencionado  decla- 
randole  la  propiedad  de  el  pr  las  presentes  letras  sugetandose  &  la 
aprobacion  de  la  Exma  Junta  Departamental  y  a  las  condiciones 
siguientes.  la.  Podra  cercarlo  sin  perjudicar  las  travecias  caminos  y 
servidumbres  los  disfrutar&  libre  j  esclusivamente  destinandolo  al  uso 
6  cultivo  qe  mas  le  acomode  pero  dentro  de  un  aiio  fnbricara  casa  y 
estara  habitada.  2a.  Solicitara  del  Juez  respectiva  que  le  de  posecion 
juridica  en  Virtud  de  este  Despacho  por  el  cual  se  demarcaran  los 
linderos  en  cuyos  limites  pondra  a  mas  de  las  mogoneras  algunos 
arboles  frutales  6  silves„res  de  alguna  utilidad.  3a.  El.  terreno  de 
que  se  hace  mention  es  de  un  sitio  de  ganado  mayor  poco  mas  6 
menos  segun  esplica  el  diseiio  que  corre  en  el  Espedt6  respectivo: 
El  Juez  que  diere  la  posecion  lo  hara  k  medir  conforme  &  Ordenanza 
quedando  el  sobrante  que  resulte  a  la  nacion  para  los  usos  que  mas  le 
convengan.  4a.  Si  contraviniere  a  estas  condiciones  perdera  su 
derecho  al  terreno  y  sera  denunciable  pr  otro.  En  consecuencia 
mando  qe  teniendose  por  firme  y  valedero  este  titulo  se  tome  razon  de 
el  en  el  libro  sobre  adjudicaciones  de  Terrenos  Valdias  y  se  entregue 
al  enteresado  para  su  resguardo  y  demas  fines. 
Dado  en  Monterey  a  1°  de  Agto.  de  1842. 


TRANSLATION  OF  ESPEDIENTE  OF  JUSTO  LARIOS. 

Espediente   presented   by  the   citizen  Justo  Larios  who  asks  for  the 
place  known  by  the  name  of  the 

"  Canada  de  los  Capitancillos." 

1842. 

294. 

Third  Seal.     Two  reals. 

Authorized  provisionally  by  the  Maritime  Custom  House  of  the  port 
of  Monterey,  in  the  Department  of  the  Californias  for  the  years  1840 
and  1841. 

ANTONIO  MARIA  OSIO. 


776 

de  Mont.  J       Authorized  again  by  the  same  for  the  year 


r n 

Ad.    Marita 


y 


1842. 


ANTONIO  MARIA  OSIO. 


is^S'bSfe  To  the  Prefect  of  the  1st  District: 
petm^arnisiTshhahving  I,  Justo  Larios  respectfully  say  that  having  pur- 
iSct!nda1ustbicethoef  chased  from  Leandro  Galindo  a  house  which  he  had 
let'the'propeffirTe  situated  at  the  place  known  by  the  name  of  the 
ofjoncessiou  be  is-  Canada  de  los  Capitancillos,  he  conveyed  to  me  all 
the  right  which  he  had  to  the  land  by  the  concession  of  the  Ylustris- 
simo  Ayuntamiento  of  the  Pueblo  of  San  Jose  Guadalupe  as  appears 
on  the  record  of  proceedings  (Espediente)  which  I  presented  in  the 
year  1836  to  his  Excellency  the  Governor,  and  also  in  the  other  which 
I  presented  in  the  year  1840  to  Don  Jose  Maria  Villa,  then  Prefect 
of  the  1st  District,  and  as  both  records  (Espedientes)  have  been  un- 
fortunately lost,  I  pray  your  Excellency  to  receive  this  and  grant  me 
the  land  which  I  solicit,  and  which  I  have  possessed  since  the  year 
1836,  declaring  it  my  property.  The  limits  of  said  tract  are  from  the 
boundaries  of  Sta.  Clara  to  the  corral  called  the  corral  of  the  late 
Macario. 

Wherefore,  I  beseech  Your  Excellency  to  grant  this  my  petition 
whereby  I  shall  receive  favor  and  reward.  I  herewith  present  to 
Your  Excellency  the  map  of  the  tract  for  which  I  ask. 

THE  PETITIONER. 

Monterey,  June  16th,  1842. 


Third  Seal.     Two  reals. 

Authorized  provisionally  by  the  Maritime  Custom  House  of  the  port 
of  Monterey  in  the  Department  of  the  Californias  for  the  years  1840 
and  1841. 

ANTONIO  MARIA  OSIO. 

, A s 

(     Ad.    Marita\ 

\^de  Mont.  J      Authorised  again  by  the   same  for    the  year 

* v- '    1842. 

ALVARADO.  ANTONIO  MARIA  OSIO. 

Monterey,  16th  June,  1842. 
In  view  of  the  petition  with  which  this  Espediente  begins,  the  set- 
tlement which  the  citizens  Justo  Larios  and  Jose  R.  Berreyesa  had  in 
the  presence  of  the  Prefect  and  Justice  of  the  Peace  of  this  place  and 


777 

everything  else  relating  thereto,  in  conformity  with  the  laws  and  regu- 
lations on  the  subject  I  declare  the  said  Justo  Larios  owner  in  lull 
property  of  a  part  of  the  land  called  Canada  de  los  Capitancillos, 
bounded  by  the  Sierra,  by  the  Arroyo  Seco  on  the  side  of  the  Estab- 
lishment of  Santa  Clara,  and  by  the  Rancho  of  the  citizen  Jose  Reyes 
Berreyesa,  which  has  for  boundary  a  line  commencing  at  the  angle 
formed  by  the  junction  of  the  Arroyo  Seco  and  the  Arroyo  de  los  Ala- 
mitos,  thence  southward  to  the  Sierra  passing  by  the  Eastern  base  of 
the  small  hills  situated  in  the  centre  of  the  Canada.  Let  the  proper 
decree  be  issued  and  registered  in  the  proper  book,  and  let  this  record 
of  proceedings  (Espediente)  be  forwarded  to  the  Departmental  Assem- 
bly of  the  Californias.  So  ordered,  decreed  and  subscribed ;  to  all 
which  I  certify. 

Juan  B.  Alvarado,  Constitutional  Governor  of  the  Californias. 
Whereas,  the  citizen  Justo  Larios  has  asked  for  his  own  benefit  and 
that  of  his  family,  the  land  known  by  the  name  of  the  Capitancillos, 
bounded  by  the  Sierra,  by  the  Arroyo  Seco  on  the  side  of  the  Estab- 
lishment of  Sta.  Clara,  and  by  the  Rancho  of  citizen  Jose  R.  Berreyesa 
which  has  for  boundary  a  line  running  from  the  junction  of  the  Arroyo 
Seco  and  Arroyo  de  los  Alamitos  Southward  to  the  Sierra  passing  by 
the  Eastern  base  of  the  small  hill  situated  in  the  centre  of  the  Canada, 
the  necessary  steps  having  been  taken  and  enquiries  made  according 
to  the  laws  and  regulations  on  this  subject,  by  virtue  of  the  powers 
conferred  upon  me  in  the  name  of  the  Mexican  Nation,  I  have 
granted  him  the  said  land,  declaring  it  his  property  by  these  presents, 
subject  to  the  approval  of  the  Departmental  Assembly,  and  to  the  fol- 
lowing conditions : 

1st.  He  may  enclose  it  without  injury  to  the  passes,  roads  and 
servitudes,  he  may  enjoy  it  freely  and  exclusively,  using  or  cultivating 
it  as  may  best  suit  him,  and  within  one  year  he  shall  build  a  house  and 
it  shall  be  inhabited. 

2d.  He  shall  solicit  the  proper  Judge  to  give  him  Juridical  pos- 
session in  -virtue  of  this  decree,  by  whom  the  boundaries  shall  be 
marked  out,  and  he  shall  put  on  the  boundaries  in  addition  to  the  land- 
marks some  fruit  trees  or  useful  forest  trees. 

3d.  The  land  herein  referred  to  is  one  league  of  the  large  size,  a 
little  more  or  less,  as  is  explained  by  the  map  accompanying  the  Espe- 
diente. The  Judge  who  shall  give  the  possession  shall  have  it  meas- 
ured in  conformity  to  law,  leaving  the  surplus  which  remains  to  the 
nation  for  the  purposes  which  may  best  suit  it. 

4th.  If  he  should  violate  these  conditions,  he  shall  lose  his  right 
and  liable  to  be  denounced  by  another. 

Wherefore,  I  order  that  this  title  being  held  firm  and  valid  shall  be 

57 


778 

registered  in  the  book  of  adjudications  of  vacant  lands  and  delivered  to 
the  person  interested  for  his  protection  and  other  purposes. 
Given  in  Monterey  the  1st  of  August,  1842. 


GRANT  ANNEXED  TO  DEPOSITION  OF  ANTONIO  SUftOL. 

Sello  primero  seis  pesos.     Habilitado  por  la  Aduana  Maratima  de 
Monterey  para  los  anos  de  1842  y  1843. 

ALVARADO.  ANTONIO  MARIA  OSIO. 

!> .  n  Juan  B.  Alvarado  Gobernador  Constitutional  del  depart- 
Seal.  I  amento  de  los  Californias.  Por  cuanto  el  ciudadano  Justo 
— —  *  Larios  ha  pretendido  para  su  beneficio  personal  y  el  de  su 
familia  el  terreno  conocido  con  el  nombre  de  las  Capitancillos,  colin- 
dante  con  la  Sierra  con  el  Arroyo  Seco,  por  la  parte  del  estableci- 
miento  de  Sta.  Clara  y  con  el  Rancho  del  Ciudadano  Jose'  R.  Berrey- 
esa  el  cual  tiene  por  lindero  el  angulo  que  forma  el  arroyo  Seco  y  el 
de  los  Alamitos  run/bo  al  Sur  la  falda  de  la  Loma  cituada  en  el  sentro 
de  la  Canada  acia  el  Este,  hasta  llegar  k  la  Sierra,  practicadas  previ- 
amte  las  diligencias  y  averiguaciones  consernientes  segun  lo  dispuesto 
por  leyes  y  reglamentos  usando  de  las  facultades  que  me  son  conteri- 
das  k  nombre  de  la  Nacion  Mejicana  he  venido  en  concederle  el  ter- 
reno mencionado  declarandole  la  propiedad  de  el  por  las  presentes 
letras.  Sugetandose  a  la  aprobacion  de  la  Exma.  Junta  Departamen- 
tal  y  bajo  las  condiciones  siguientes.  la.  Podra  sercarlo  sin  perjudi- 
car  las  travecias,  caminos  y  servidumbres  lo  disfrutara  libre  y  esclusiv 
amte  destinandolo  al  uso  o  culto  que  mas  le  acomode  pero  dentro  de  un 
ano  fabricara  casa  y  estara  habitada.  2a.  El  terreno  de  que  se  hace 
mencion  es  de  un  sitio  de  ganado  mayor  poco  mas  o  menos  segun  es- 
plica  el  diseno  qu  ecorre  en  el  espedte  respectivo.  El  Juez  que  diere  la 
posecion  lo  hara  medio  conforme  a  Ordenanza,  quedando  el  sobrante 
que  resulte  a  la  Nacion  para  los  usos  convenientes.  3a.  Solicitara  del 
Juez  respectivo  que  le  de  la  posecion  juridica  en  virtud  de  este  despa- 
cho  por  el  cual  se  demarcaran  los  linderos  en  cuyos  limites  pondra  las 
correspondientes  mojoneras.  4a.  Si  contraviniere  a  estas  condiciones 
perdera  su  derecho  al  terreno  y  sera  denunciable  por  otro.  En  con- 
secuencia  mando  que  teniendose  por  firme  y  valadero  el  presente 
titulo  se  tome  razon  en  el  libro  a  que  corresponde  y  se  entregue  al 


779 

interesado  para  su  resguardo  y  demas  fines.     Dado  en  Monterey  a  l1 
de  Sepbre,  de  mil  ochocientos  cuarenta  y  dos. 

JUAN  B.  ALVARADO. 


Queda  tomada  razon  de  este  deapacho  en  el  libro  de  acientos  sobre 
adjudicaciones  de  terrenos  valdios  4  foja. 

Exmo  Sor.  Gobernador  has  dispuesto  se  tome  razon  de  esta  con- 
cesion  en  la  Prefectura  del  ler.  Distrito. 


TRANSLATION  OF  GRANT. 
First  Seal.     Six  dollars. 


Authorized  by  the  Maritime  Custom  House  of  Monterey,  for  the 
years  of  1842  and  1843. 
ALVARADO.  ANTONIO  MARIA  OSIO. 


r 


.A. 


C     Maratime 
I  Custom  House 
]    of  Monterey. 

^         Seal.         )      Juan  B.  Alvarado,  Constitutional  Governor  of 
^ /    the  Department  of  the  Californias. 


^ 


Whereas,  the  citizen  Justo  Larios  has  asked  for  his  own  benefit  and 
that  of  his  family,  the  land  known  by  the  name  of  the  Capitancillos, 
bounded  by  the  Sierra,  by  the  Arroyo  Seco  on  the  side  of  the  Estab- 
lishment of  Sta.  Clara,  and  by  the  Rancho  of  the  citizen  Jose  R.  Ber- 
reyesa  which  has  for  boundary  a  line  running  from  the  junction  of  the 
Arroyo  Seco  and  Arroyo  de  los  Alamitos  Southward  to  the  Sierra, 
passing  by  the  Eastern  base  of  the  small  hill  situated  in  the  centre  of 
the  Canada,  the  necessary  steps  having  been  taken,  and  enquiries  made 
according  to  the  law  and  regulations  on  the  subject,. by  virtue  of  the 
powers  conferred  upon  me  in  the  name  of  the  Mexican  Nation,  I 
have  granted  him  the  said  land,  declaring  it  his  property  by  these 
presents,  subject  to  the  approval  of  the  Departmental  Assembly  and  to 
the  following  conditions : 


780 

1st.  He  may  enclose  it  without  injury  to  the  passes,  roads  and  ser- 
vitudes, he  may  enjoy  it  freely  and  exclusively,  using  or  cultivating  it 
as  may  best  suit  him,  but  within  one  year  he  shall  build  a  house  and  it 
shall  be  inhabited. 

2d.  The  land  herein  referred  to  is  one  league  of  the  greater  size,  a 
little  more  or  less,  as  is  explained  by  the  map  accompanying  the  Espe- 
diente.  The  Judge  who  shall  give  the  possession  shall  have  it  meas- 
ured in  conformity  to  law,  leaving  the  surplus  to  the  nation  which 
remains  for  the  purposes  which  may  suit  it. 

3d.  He  shall  solicit  the  proper  Judge  to  give  him  Juridical  posses- 
sion in  virtue  of  this  Decree,  by  whom  the  boundaries  shall  be  marked 
out,  and  upon  which  he  shall  put  the  proper  land  marks. 

4th.  If  he  should  violate  these  conditions  he  shall  lose  his  right  to 
the  land  and  it  shall  be  open  to  be  denounced  by  another. 

Wherefore,  I  order  that  this  title  being  held  firm  and  valid  shall  be 
registered  in  the  proper  book,  be  delivered  to  the  grantee  for  his  pro- 
tection and  other  purposes. 

Given  at  Monterey  the  1st  of  September,  1842. 

JUAN  B.  ALVARADO. 


This  is  recorded  in  this  office  in  the  Book  of  Entries  of  Adjudica- 
tions of  vacant  lands  page. 

His  Excellency  the  Governor  has  ordered  that  this  grant  be  recorded 
in  the  Prefecture  of  the  1st  District. 

[Here  follows  diseno.] 
Filed,  January  30th,  1858. 


W.  H.  CHEVERS, 
Dep.  Clerk. 


781 


ESPEDIENTE  OF  JOSE  R.  BERREYESA. 

Espediente  Promovido  por  el  Ciudadano  Josi  Reyes  Berreyesa  en  so- 
licitud del  parage  nombrado  la  Canada  de  los  Capitancillos. 

293. 


Uspediente  promobido,  pr.  el  Ciudadano  Jose  R.  Berreyesa,  en  solid- 
tud  del  parage,  nombrado  Canada  de  las  Capitancillos. 

Mont™,  Junto*.      ExMQ#    gR# 
Ynforme  el  Juez  de 

Paz,  del  puebio  de  sn  jj  ciud0>  jose  R  Berreyesa,  Vecino  del  Puebb 

alvarado.  <je;  g#  jos£  Guadalupe  ;  ante  V.  E.  como  mas  haya 
lugar,  y  el  derecho  le  permite,  se  presenta  y  dice  :  qe.  ya  hace  el  di- 
latado  tiempo,  de  mas  de  ocho  anos,  qe  se  haya  radicado  en  el  parage 
nombrado  S.  Vicente,  Canada  de  los  Capitancillos ;  cuyo  parage  le  fue 
concedido  oficialmente,  pr.  el  finado  Sr.  Gral.  D.  Jose  Figueroa,  en  el 
qe.  ha  subcistido,  hasta  la  f  ha,  con  su  muy  numerosa  familia  ;  y  aun- 
que  &  pesar,  de  haver  hecho  varias  instancias,  en  solicitud  de  obtener 
el  titulo  correpondte.  pa  asegurar  su  legitima  propiedad,  no  ha  podido 
hta  ahora  lograre  esta  satisfacion  ;  cuya  demora  k  dado  lugar,  a  qe  su 
colindante  Justo  Larios,  haya  tumbado  su  casa  y  plantadola,  en  el  in- 
termedio  qe  los  divida,  qe  heran  como  cosa  de  dos  Leguas,  poco  mas  6 
menos,  con  detrimt0.  del  agua,  qe  le  quito  al  ganado,  y  lo  auyento  pa. 
esa  parte  ;  y  aun  sin  embargo  de  qe.  no  se  debe  conciderar  este,  con 
tanto  derecho,  como  se  lo  han  sugerido  varies  seductores  enemigos  del 
orden  social ;  qe  como  vieron  qe  yo,  pretendia  se  partiesa  la  diferiencia 
del  terreno,  le  aconsejaron  puciera  su  casa,  en  la  dicha  mediacion,  pd. 
de  este  modo  entorpecer  del  todo  mis  intenciones.  Por  que  si  hace 
tres,  6  cuatro  anos  qe.  se  haya  subsistrido  pr  Leandro  Galindo,  este  no 
hizo  mas  de  vender  le  la  casa,  y  no  el  terreno,  pa.  qe.  no  se  hayaba  con 
derecho  p\  ello,  y  sin  embargo,  el  anda  p,a.  bender  el  parage  como  ya 
lo  vd.  averificar  ;  pr.  donde  se  infiere  ;  de  qe.  no  lo  nececita,  o  no  tiene 
mayor  interes  en  el.  Ya  la  ves  Sr  Exmo.  qe.  el  espresado  mi  colin- 
dante &  vsado  de  esta  arvitrariedad  (como  el  mismo  me  lo  dijo)  de  po- 
ner  su  casa  facultimamte.  en  el  intermedio  ;  este  sea  el  lindero  qe.  nos 
divida,  si  V.  E.  lo  tiene  abien ;  pr.  qe.  el  tiene  adonde  estenderse,  qe 
es.  p\  fuera  de  la  Canada,  qe  a  nadie  pertenese  ;  y  yo  no  tengo  abso- 
lutamente  a  donde  alargarme.  Mi  solicitud  4  sido  siempre  de  dos  sit- 
ios,  a  ahora  la  hago  lo  mismo  ;  qe  es  decir,  desde  la  casa  de  Justo  La- 


782 

rios  hasta  el  matadero,  con  todas  las  lomas,  qe  pertenecen  a  la  dha 
caiiada.  Los  derechos  qe.  en  esta  parte  me  pueden  favorecer,  son  26 
anos  y  4  meses  mas,  qe  servi  a  la  patria,  en  la  carrera  militar  ;  desde 
soldado  hta.  Sargt0.  en  que  vse.  de  mi  Licencia  absoluta,  sin  nota  nin- 
guna  como  consta  pr.  ella.  Y  despues  de  haver  sacrificado,  toda  mi 
vida  sali  al  fin,  sin  pagamt0.  ninguno  perdidos  mis  averes ;  y  solamte. 
con  once  hijos  de  familia,  qe.  se  hayan  actualmte  en  mi  compa  y  a  mi 
sombra,  y  de  estos  casados  cuatro  de  ellos ;  y  tengo  el  honor  de  acom- 
paiiar  a  V.  E.  el  diseno :  Por  tanto. 

A.  V.  E.  rendidamte  suplico,  se  digne  tener  en  concideracion  todo 
cuanto  dejo  espuesto,  y  ver  propicio  esta  mi  suplicatoria  de  qe.  le  vivire 
reconocido. 

Kancho  de  S.  Vicente  2  de  Junio  de  1842 

JOSE.  R.  BERREYESA 

En  virtud  de  la  orden  qe  le.  E.  se  sirvio  ordenar  me  aqe  se  presen- 
taran  en  este  Juzgado  de  mi  cargo  los  C.  C.  Jose  Reyes  Berreyesa  y 
Justo  Larios,  presentando  los  documentos.  qe  acreditan  las  solicitudes 
o  propiedad  sobre  el  terreno  llamado  Canada  de  Capitancillos  ;  al  efec- 
to,  el  primero  presento  el  espediente  qe  antecede,  esponiendo  tener  dos 
representaciones  mas  en  la  Prefectura  del  Distrito,  el  segundo  fue  lla- 
mado, y  no  se  presento  mas  si,  adquirir  pr  Dn.  Dolores  Pacheco  ante- 
rior mio,  qe.  Larios  habia  presentado  un  espediente  en  el  ano  40,  y  se 
halla  en  dha  Prefectura ;  se  ha  dho  antes,  qe.  Larios  no  se  habia  pre- 
sentado, y  al  tiempo  de  escribir  las  ultimas  lineas  se  presento  y  dio  la 
misma  razon  dada  pr.  Dn.  Dolores  Pacheco. 

El  Sargento  Reyes  Berreyesa,  dijo  era  conforme  con  la  supuriores 
disposiciones  qe  V.  E.  tubiera  &  bien  disponer. 

Pueblo  de  San  Jose  Junio  11.  de  1842 

ANTONINO  BUELNA. 

Monterey  Junio  lZ.de  1842. 

Ynforme  la  prefectura  con  presencia  de  los  documentos  6  solicitudes 
a  que  se  refiere  el  informe  del  Juez  de  Paz  del  Pueblo  de  Sn.  Jose* 

ALYARADO 

EXMO   S.    GOVR.   DE  ESTE  DEPARTAMT0. 

Con  el  mayor  ciudado  se  ha  solicitado  en  el  Archivo  de  este  ofici- 
na  el  espediente  de  qe  hace  mencion  en  su  informe  el.  S.  Juez  de  Paz 
de  Sn.  Jose*  pertenecte.  a  D.  Justo  Larios  y  no  existe ;  aunque  de,  el 
qe  promobi6  el  C.  Jose  R.  Berrelleza,  y  en  vista  de  estos  documtos  del 
informe  del  citado  Juez,  y  de  la  honradez,  numerosa  familia  y  buenos 
servicios  del  S.  Berrellesa,  la  Prefft  de  mi  cargo  opina.  qe  puede  con- 


783 

cederse  le  el  terreno  que  preterite  y  consta  en  el  adjunto  diceno,  sirvi- 
endole  de  limites  la  casa  de  D.  Justo  Larios ;  mas  sin  embargo.  V.  E. 
resolvera  lo  qe  estime  mas  en  justicia. 

Protesto  a  V.  E.  las  seguridades  de  mi  respeto. 

Monterey,  Junio  14  de  1842. 

JOSE.  R.  ESTRADA 

Monterey  Junio  15.  de  1842. 

Conose  traslado  a  la  parte  de  Justo  Larios  para  que  a  lo  que  cuanto 
crea  conveniente  a  sus  derechos  justificando  al  mismo  tiempo  conforme 
k  la  ley  los  meritos  y  servicios  echos  a  la  patria. 

ALVARADO 

Monterey  Agt0 1°  de  1842. 

Haviendo  convenido  la  parte  de  Larios  y  de  Berreyesa  estar  confor- 
mes  con  los  linderos  denunciados  en  el  diceno  adjunto  y  en  virtud  de 
estar  ocupando  y-cultivando  el  terreno  este  pr.  algun  tiempo,  espidare 
se  el  titulo  correspondiente 

ALVARADO 

Monterey  20  de  Agt0  de  1842. 

Vista  la  peticion  con  que  da  principio  este  espediente  los  informes 
que  preseden  con  todo  lo  demas  que  se  tubo  presente  y  ver  semovino 
declaro  en  conformidad  a  las  leyes  respectivas  dueno  en  propiedad  el 
Ciudadano  Jose  R.  Berreyesa,  de  una  parte  el  parage  nombrado  Cafi- 
ada  de  los  Capitancillos,  colindante  al  Norte  con  las  Lomerias  bajas  in- 
mediatas  al  plan  del  Pueblo  de  San  Josd,  al  Sur  con  la  Sierra,  al  Ori- 
ente  con  las  Lomerias  del  Laurel,  y  al.  Poniente  con  el  rancho  del  ciu- 
dadano Justo  Larios  el  cual  tiene  por  lindero  el  angulo  que  forma  el 
Arroyo  Seco  y  el  de  los  Alamitos  la  falda  de  la  Loma  cituada  en  el 
sentro  de  la  Canada  y  la  Sierra.  Librese  el  correspond16,  despacho 
tomese  razon  en  el  libro  respectivo  y  dirijase  este  espedte.  a  la  Exma 
Junta  Departamental  para  su  aprobacion. 

El  Sor.  Don  Juan  B.  Alvarado.  Gobernador  Constitucional  de  las 
Californias  as  lo  probeyo  mando  y  firmo. 


Exmo.  Senor 

Los  litigantes  C.  C.  Jose*  Berreyesa  y  Justo  Larios  han  convenido 
ante  mi  en  que  los  linderos  de  ambos  al  rumbo  del  E.,  segun  de  muea 


784 

tra  el  diseno  de  Berreyesa,  sea  tirando  una  recta  desde  el  angulo  que 
forma  el  arroyo  de  los  Alamillos,  con  el  seco,  rumbo  al  S.  la  falda  de 
la  loma  situada  en  el  centro  de  la  Canada,  hacia  el  E.  y  hasta  llegara 
la  Sierra  ;  de  manera  que  segun  el  espresado  diseno  que  parece  mas 
esacto,  la  repitida  linea  viene  a  ser  una  paralela  que  yo  he  demarcado 
con  puntos  para  el  conocimiento  de  V.  E. 

Con  la  que  han  quedado  aquietados  y  conformes. 

Monterey  16.  de  Junio  de  1842. 

JOSE.  Z.  FERNANDEZ. 


(Here  follows  diseno.) 


Juan.  B.  Alvarado,  Gobernador  Constitutional  del  Departamento  de 
las  Californias. 

Por  cuanto  el  Ciudadano  Jose"  Reyes  Berreyesa  ha  pretendido  para 
su  beneficio  personal  y  el  de  su  familia  una  parte  del  parage  nombrado 
Canada  de  los  Capitancillos ;  colindante  al  Norte  con  las  Lomarias  ba- 
jas  inmediatas  al  plan  del  Pueblo  de  Sn.  Jos£,  al  Sur  con  la  Sierra,  al 
Oriente  con  las  Lomerias  del  Laurel,  y  al  Poniente  con  el  Rancho  del 
Ciudadano  Justo  Larios  el  cual  tiene  por  lindero  el  angulo  que  forma 
el  arroyo  seco  y  el  de  los  Alamitos  rumbo  al  Sur,  la  falda  de  la  loma 
cituada  en  el  centro  de  la  Canada  asi  al  este  hasta  llegar  a  la  Sierra : 
practicadas  pre/iamente  las  diligencias  y  aberiguaciones  consernientes 
segun  lo  dispuesto  por  leyes  usando  de  las  facultades  que  me  son  con- 
feridas  a  nombre  de  la  Nacion  Mejicana  he"  venido  en  concederle  el 
terreno  mencionado  declarandole  la  propiedad  de  el  por  los  presentes 
letras,  sugeto  a  la  aprobacion  de  la  Exma  Junta  Departamental  y  a  las 
condiciones  siguientes. 

1\  Podra  sercarlo  sin  perjudicar  las  travecios,  caminos  y  servidum- 
bres,  lo  disfrutara  libre  y  esclusivamente  distinandolo  al  uso  qe.  cultivo 
que  mas  le  acomode,  pero  dentro  de  un  ano  fabricard,  casa  y  estara 
habitada. 

2a.  Solicitara  del  Juez  respectivo  que  le  de  posecion  juridica  en  vir- 
tud  de  este  despacho  pr.  el  cual  se  demarcaran  los  linderos  en  cuyos 
limites  pondra  amas  de  las  mojoneras  algunos  arboles  frutales  6  cilves- 
tres  de  alguna  utilidad. 

3a.  El  terreno  de  que  se  hace  mencion,  es  de  un  citio  de  ganado 
mayor  poco  mas  6  menos  segun  explica  el  diceiio  que  corre  en  el  Es- 
pedte.  respectivo. 

El  Juez  diese  la  posecion  lo  hara  medir  conforme  a  ordenanza  que- 


785 

dando  el  sobrante  que  resulte  &  la  Nacion  para  los  usos  que  mas  le 
conbengan. 

4a.  Li  contrabiniese  a  estas  condiciones  perdera  su  derecho  al  terre- 
uo  y  sera  denunciable  por  otro. 

En  consecuencia  mando  que  tienendose  por  firme  y  valedero  este 
titulo  se  tome  rason  de  el  en  el  Libro  a  que  corresponde  y  se  entregue 
al  interesado  para  su  resguardo  y  demas  fines. 

Dado  en  Monterey  k  Veinte  de  Agosto  de  mil  ochocientos  cuarenta 
y  dos. 


*&£&****    Exmo.  Sr. 


15  de  1844. 


Tnfe.  el.  S.  Srio.  del 

Despacho.  j]j#  q  jos£  r  Berreyesa.  Vecino  del  Pueblo  de 

MTPTT17T  rpA  %/ 

'  S.  Jose*  Guade.  ante  V.  E.  como  mas  haya  lugar,  y  el 
derecho  le  permite,  se  presenta  y  dice :  que  hace  ya  el  tiempo  de  diez 
alios,  qe.  se  haya  radicado  y  establecido  con  su  numerosa  familia  en 
este  su  rancho  de  S.  Vicente — Canada  de  los  Capitancillos ;  y  desde 
aquella  f  ha  no  ha  omitido  diligencia  alguna  pa.  poder  conseguir  su  des- 
pacho 6  un  titulo  qe.  le  asegure  su  legitima  propiedad  pr.  que.  aunque 
en  el  ano  anterior  de  quarenta  y  dos,  recivio  un  titulo  espedido  pr.  el 
Sr.  D.  Juan  B.  Alvarado.  pero  como  no  hera  conforme  al  Espediante 
qe.  presence  a  la  Superioridad  a  causa  de  qeme  sugetaba  a  un  sitio  pu- 
ramente  :  siendo  asi,  qe.  desde  un  principio  siempre  ha  sido  mi  solici- 
tud  de  dos  sitios  p\  ganado  mayor,  y  qe.  actualmte.  los  tengo  ocupados 
como  es  constante  y  verifico  con  la  cantidad  de  seiscientas  reses :  y  pr. 
esta  causa  no  pude  admitir  el  titulo  qe.  me  mandaron  en  aquella  ves : 
y  fue,  yo  mismo  en  persona  y  so  lo  debolvi  y  entregue*  en  sus  manos  a" 
D.  Manuel  Gimeno.  diciendole  la  causa  pr.  qe.  no  me  conform'aba  con 
el :  y  como  en  aquellos  dias  fue  y  susedio  la  toma  de  Monterey,  yo  me 
retire,  y  no  he  podido  volver  a  hio  a  este  negocios  tan  urgente,  pero  a 
hora  con  ocacion  qe.  va  una  persona  de  mi  casa  lo  hago,  pr.  medio  de 
este  Escrito,  suplicando  a  V.  E.  si  lo  tiene  a  bien,  ordemar  qe  se  me 
estienda  y  remita  mi  despacho  correspond16,  en  estos  terminos  :  desde 
la  punta  de  la  lomita  asi  al  poniente,  qe.  esta  en  el  sentro  de  la  Cana- 
da hasta  el  plan  del  Arroyo  de  las  Yagas,  entra  la  cierra,  y  con  todo 
el  Lomerio  qe.  pertenece  a  la  dicha  estrecha  Canada  de  los  Capitancil- 
los, y  qe  tiene  de  Longitud.  dos  sitios,  poco  mas  6  menos,  y  de  latitud 
un  cuarto  de  Legua,  ni  en  lo  mas  ancho,  que  es  donde  tengo  mi  casa 
y  subsistencia :  Por  tanto, 

A.  V.  E.  rendidamte.  suplico  se  digne  ver  propicio  esta  me 
suplicatoria,  de  qe.  le  vivire  reconocido. 
S.  Vicente  1°.  de  Feb°.  de  1844. 

JOSE.  R.  BERREYESA. 


786 
Sr.  Gobernador. 

Al  que  representa  se  le  concedio  un  solo  sitio  de  ganado  mayor,  como 
consta  en  el  espedienta  respectivo,  y  si  su  pretencion  es  de  tener  mas 
estencion,  seria  conveniente  que  informasa  el  Juez  del  Pueblo  de  San 
Jose*  con  citacion  de  los  colindantes  principalmte.  con  el  vecino  Justo 
Larios  con  quien  antes  tubo  cuestion. 

No  tengo  presente  que  me  haya  entregado  su  titulo  el  interesado,  y 
ni  tenia  para  que*  dejarme  ese  documento.  que  tal  vez  no  sabia  verda- 
deramente  donde  lo  puso  pero  si  necesitare  un  testimonio  de  la  conce- 
cion  que  se  le  hizo  puede  presentar  el  papel  sellado  que  corresponde. 

El  superior  discernimiento  de  V.  E.  resolvera  lo  que  crea  conveni- 
ente. 

Monterey  Feb0.  15  de  1844. 

MANL.  JIMENO. 


Monterey  Feb0.  16.  de  1844. 

Como  informa  el  S.  Srio.  de  mi  despacho  informe  el  Juez  con  cita- 
cion de  las  colindantes  y  luego  q.  se  evacue  aquel  vuelva  el  interesado 
con  el  papel  respectivo  p\  el  nuevo  titulo. 

MICHELTA. 

En  cumplimt0.  k  lo  dispuesto  pr.  el  Superior  Govierno  en  diez  y  seis 
de  Feb0,  del  presente  ano  hise  compareser  a  Dn.  Justo  Larios  como 
colindante  del  terreno  de  qe.  se  hase  mension  en  la  presedente  instan- 
sia  y  hecho  presente  4  este  el  escrito  firmado  pr.  el  interesado,  espuso 
qe.  pr.  dar  su  pareser  en  era  presiso  premeditar  y  llegar  ante  el  Go- 
vierno. pero  en  seguida  medio  una  mutua  convenasion,  y  es  en  la  for- 
ma qe  sigue. 

El  rincon  del  arroyo  conocido  pr.  nombre  los  Alamillos  qe.  confronta 
con  la  punta  de  la  loma  servira  de  lindero  &  ambas  partas  y  asi  que  dan 
sujetos  los  interesados. 

Es  cuanto  a  la  vez  puedo  informar  sobre  el  Particular. 

Pueblo  de  S.  Jose.  Mayo.  22.  de  1844. 

ANTONIO  MA.  PICO 


EXMO    SoR   GOBERNADOR 

Segun  la  conformidad  del  colindante  Justo  Larios,  parece  que  no 
hay  inconveniente  alguno  para  que  se  le  estienda  nuevo  titulo 
Monterey  Julio  15.  de  '844 

MANL.  JIMENO 


787 

Monterey  Julio  23.  de  1844. 
Espedidase 

MICHELT0 

Filed  Jany  30,  1858. 

W.  H.  CHEVERS, 

Dep.  Clk. 


TRANSLATION    OF    ESPEDIENTE    OF  JOSE    R. 
BERREYESA. 

"  Espediente"  presented  by  the  citizen  Jose  Reyes  Berreyesa,  petition- 
ingfor  the  place  called 

"  Canada  de  los  Gapitancillos" 

Most  Excellent  Sir  : 

ju^e06th?ri842:  The  citizen,  Jose*  R.  Berreyesa,  resident  of  the  town  of 
peace11  of ceth<f  San  Jose*  Guadalupe,  before  your  Excellency,  in  the  most 
wiSi^ort?090  f°rmal  manner  and  as  the  law  permits,  presents  himself 
alvakado.  an(j  sayS)  that  for  the  long  period  of  more  than  eight  years, 
he  has  been  settled  in  the  place  called"  San  Vicente,"  Canada  de  los 
Capitancillos,  which  place  was  officially  granted  to  him  by  General 
Don  Jose*  Figueroa  deceased,  where  he  has  subsisted  up  to  this  time 
with  his  very  numerous  family  and  notwithstanding  many  efforts  made 
by  him  in  endeavoring  to  obtain  the  corresponding  title,  to  ensure  his 
legitimate  possession,  he  has  not  been  able  up  to  enjoy  that  satisfac- 
tion :  the  delay  has  given  room  to  the  occupant  of  the  land  adjoining, 
one  Justos  Larios,  to  remove  his  house  and  set  it  in  the  intermediate 
space  which  separated  them  and  which  was  in  extent  about  two 
leagues,  little  more  or  less,  doing  damage  thereby  in  diverting  the 
water  from  the  cattle  and  driving  it  away  from  that  place  ;  and  even 
notwithstanding  he  should  not  consider  himself  as  having  so  much 
right  as  has  been  suggested  to  him  by  sundry  corrupt  persons,  enemies 
of  social  order,  who  when  they  saw  that  I  proposed  to  divide  the  differ- 
ence of  the  land,  advised  him  to  place  his  house  in  the  said  interme- 
diate space,  so  as  in  this  way  completely  to  frustrate  my  intentions. 
For  it  is  three  or  four  years  that  he  has  been  the  substitute  of  Leandro 
Galindo,  this  latter  person  did  nothing  more  than  sell  him  the  house, 
and  not  the  land,  for  he  had  no  right  to  do  that,  and  nevertheless  he 
goes  about  trying  to  sell  the  place,  and  is  really  about  to  accomplish 
his  purpose ;  from  which  it  is  to  be  inferred,  that  he  does  not  need  it, 
or  takes  no  great  interest  in  it.     And  at  the  same  time  most  Excellent 


788 

Sir,  that  my  aforesaid  neighbor  has  proceeded  so  arbitrarily  (as  he 
himself  told  me)  to  place  his  house  by  authority  in  the  intermediate 
space  ;  let  this  be  the  boundary  between  us,  if  Your  Excellency 
deems  proper,  for  he  has  room  to  extend  on  the  (land)  outside  of  the 
valley  which  belongs  to  nobody  and  I  absolutely  have  nowhere  to  en- 
large. 

My  petition  has  always  been  for  two  "  sitios"  (leagues)  and  I  now 
make  it  for  the  same  ;  namely  from  the  house  of  Justo  Larios  up  to 
the  slaughtering  place  with  all  the  hills  that  belong  to  said  valley. 
The  rights  which  in  relation  hereto  may  avail  me,  are,  twenty-six 
years  and  four  months  more,  that  I  served  the  country  in  the  military 
career,  from  private  to  sergeant,  when  I  obtained  my  absolute  dis- 
charge without  imputation  whatsoever,  as  thereby  shown,  and  after 
sacrificing  all  my  lifetime  I  left  at  last  without  any  pay,  my  property 
lost,  and  only  with  eleven  children  of  the  family  who  are  at  this  pre- 
sent time  in  my  company  and  under  my  care,  and  of  these,  four  mar- 
ried. And  I  have  the  honor  to  present  to  your  Excellency  herewith 
the  respective  map  (diseno.) 

Therefore  I  humbly  pray  Your  Excellency  may  be  pleased  to  take 
into  consideration  all  that  I  have  set  forth  and  favorably  regard  this 
my  petition,  for  which  I  shall  be  thankful. 

Rancho  of  San  Vincente,  2d  June,  1842. 

In  virtue  of  the  order  which  Your  Excellency  was  pleased  to  send 
me,  that  the  citizens  Jose  Reyes  Berreyesa  and  Justo  Larios  should 
appear  in  this  tribunal  under  my  charge,  presenting  the  documents 
which  may  accredit  the  petitions  or  ownership  concerning  the  land 
called  "  Canada  de  Capitancillos  ;"  in  pursuance  thereof  the  first  pre- 
sented the  foregoing  "  expediente  "  making  known  that  he  had  two 
other  memorials  in  the  prefecture  of  the  district ;  the  second  was 
called  and  did  not  present  himself;  but  I  ascertained  through  Don 
Dolores  Pacheco,  my  predecessor,  that  Larios  had  presented  an 
"  espediente  "  in  the  year  40,  and  it  is  in  said  prefecture.  It  has 
been  said  hereinbefore  that  Larios  had  not  presented  himself,  and  at 
the  time  of  writing  the  last  lines,  he  appeared  and  gave  the  same 
account  given  by  Don  Dolores  Pacheco. 

The  Sergeant  Reyes  Berreyesa  said  he  submitted  to  the  superior 
disposition  which  your  Excellency  might  deem  proper  to  make. 

Town  of  San  Jose',  June  11th,  1842. 

ANTONINO  BUELNA. 


789 

Monterey,  June  13th,  1842. 
The  prefecture  will  report  having  present  the  documents  or 
petitions  to  which  the  Communication  of  the  Question  of  Peace 
of  the  Town  of  San  Jose  refers. 

ALYARADO. 


Most  Excellent  Governor 

of  this  Department. 

The  "  espediente  "  belonging  to  Don  Justo  Larios  of  which  the 
Justice  of  Peace  of  San  Jose  makes  mention  in  his  report,  has 
been  sought  for  in  the  archive  of  this  office  with  the  greatest  care 
and  does  not  exist.  There  appears  however  that  which  was  pre- 
sented by  the  citizen  Jose  R.  Berreyesa,  and  in  view  of  these 
documents,  of  the  report  of  the  aforesaid  judge  and  of  the  honesty, 
numerous  family  and  good  services  of  Senor  Berreyesa,  the  pre- 
fecture of  my  ministration  is  of  opinion  that  the  land  which  he 
solicits  and  which  is  described  in  the  annexed  map  (diseno)  may 
be  granted  to  him,  the  house  of  Don  Justo  Larios  serving  as 
boundary.  Nevertheless,  your  Excellency  will  resolve  whatsoever 
you  esteem  to  be  most  in  accordance  with  justice. 

I  offer  your  Excellency  the  assurances  of  my  respect. 

Monterey,  June  14th,  1842. 

JOSE  R.  ESTRADA. 

Monterey,  June  15th,  1842. 
Deliver  a  copy  of  proceedings  to  Justo  Larios,  so  that  he  may 
allege  whatever  he  thinks  important  to  his  rights,  justifying  at 
the  same  time  according  to  law,  the  merits  and  services  done  to 
the  County. 

ALYARADO. 

Monterey,  August  1st,  1842. 
The  parties  Larios  and  Berreyesa  having  agreed  to  conform  to 
the  boundaries  denounced  (shown)  in  the  annexed  map,  (diseno) 
and  in  consideration  of  this  land  being  occupied  and  cultivated 
for  some  time,  let  the  corresponding  title  be  issued. 

ALYARADO. 

Monterey,  20th  August,  1842. 

In  view  of  the  petition  with  which  this  "  espediente  n  was  begun, 

the  foregoing  reports,  with  all  other  matters  known  and  proper 

to  be  considered  in  conformity  with  the  respective  laws,  I  declare 

the  citizen  Jose  R.  Berreyesa  owner  in  property  of  a  part  of  the 


790 

place  called  "  Canada  de  los  Capitancillos,"  bounded  on  the  north 
by  the  low  hills  (lomerias  bajas)  in  the  vicinity  of  the  plain  of 
the  Town  of  San  Jose,  on  the  South  by  the  mountain  range  (la 
Sierra),  on  the  East  by  the  hills  of  the  "  Laurel  (laurel)  tree, 
(lomerias  del  laurel),  and  on  the  West  by  the  "  rancho  "  of  the 
citizen  Justo  Larios,  which  has  for  boundary  the  angle  formed  by 
the  dry  creek  (arroyo  seco)  and  that  of  the  "  Alamitos  "  (little 
poplars),  the  base  of  the  low  hill  (la  falda  de  la  loma)  situated  in 
the  centre  of  the  valley  (Canada)  and  the  mountain  range  (La 
Sierra.)  Let  the  corresponding  decree  (despacho)  be  issued,  a 
register  thereof  made  in  the  respective  book  and  the  "  espediente  " 
be  directed  to  the  most  Excellent  Departamental  Junta  for  its 
approval. 

Don  Juan  B.  Alvarado,  Constitutional  Governor  of  the  Cali- 
fornias  so  provided,  ordered  and  signed. 


Most  Excellent  Sir  : 

The  litigants  citizens  Jose  Berreyesa  and  Justo  Larios  have 
agreed  before  me  that  the  boundaries  of  both  in  the  direction  of 
East,  as  shown  in  the  map  (diseno)  of  Berreyesa,  shall  be  drawing 
a  straight  line  from  the  angle  which  the  arroyo  (creek)  "  alami- 
tos •  '"  forms  in  the  dry  creek  (arroyo  seco)  direction  southward, 
the  Eastern  base  of  the  low  hill  (loma)  situated  in  the  centre  of 
the  valley  (Canada)  and  until  reaching  the  Sierra  (Mountain.) 
So  that  according  to  the  diseno  (map)  which  appears  more  exact, 
the  said  line  becomes  a  parallel  which  I  have  marked  with  dots 
for  the  knowledge  of  your  Excellency. 

With  which  they  have  rested  satisfied  and  conformable; 

Monterey,  16th  June,  1842. 

JOSE  Z.  FERNANDEZ. 

(Here  follows  the  diseilo.) 


Juan  B.  Alvarado,  Constitutional  Governor  of  the  Department 
of  Californias. 

Whereas  the  citizen  Jose*  Reyes  Berreyesa  has  solicited  for  his 
personal  benefit  and  that  of  his  family  a  part  of  the  place  called 
"  Canada  de  los  Capitancillos,"  bounded  on  the  north  by  the  low 
hills  (lomerias  bajas)  in  the  vicinity  of  the  plain  of  the  Town  of 


791 

San  Jose,  on  the  south  by  the  mountain  (Sierra),  on  the  east  by 
the  Laurel  tree  hills  (lomerias  del  laurel),  and  on  the  west  by  the 
11  rancho  "  of  the  citizen  Justo  Larios  which  has  for  boundary  the 
angle  which  the  arroyo  seco  (dry  creek)  forms  with  that  of  the 
"alamitos"  (little  poplars),  direction  southward;  the  eastern  base 
of  the  low  hill  situated  in  the  centre  of  the  valley  (Canada)  until 
reaching  the  Sierra  (the  mountain),  the  necessary  proceedings 
and  inquiries  thereto  having  been  made  in  accordance  with  the 
laws ;  in  the  exercise  of  the  powers  which  are  conferred  upon 
me  in  the  name  of  the  Mexican  Nation,  I  have  granted  to  him 
the  said  land,  declaring  it  to  be  his  property  by  these  presents, 
subject  to  the  approval  of  the  most  Excellent  "  Junta  Departa- 
mental  "  and  to  the  following  conditions  : 

1st.  He  can  enclose  it  without  detriment  to  the  crossings, 
roads  and  servitudes  ;  he  can  enjoy  it  freely  and  exclusively,  ap- 
pointing it  to  the  use  or  culture  that  he  pleases,  but  within  one 
year  he  shall  build  a  house,  and  it  shall  be  inhabited. 

2d.  He  shall  apply  to  the  respective  Judge  to  give  him  judi- 
cial possession  in  virtue  of  this  decree,  by  whom  the  boundaries 
shall  be  marked,  on  which,  in  addition  to  the  land  marks,  he  shall 
place  some  fruit  trees  or  forest  trees  of  some  utility. 

3d.  The  land  of  which  mention  is  made,  is  one  "  Sitio  de 
ganado  mayor  "  (one  league),  a  little  more  or  less,  as  shown  in 
the  diseno  (map),  which  is  placed  in  the  respective  "  expediente." 
The  Judge  who  gives  the  possession  will  cause  it  to  be  measured 
according  to  regulation,  leaving  the  surplus  which  remains  to  the 
nation  for  the  uses  which  may  be  found  most  convenient. 

4th.  If  he  violates  these  conditions,  he  will  lose  his  rights  to 
the  land,  and  it  will  become  subject  to  denouncement  by  another. 

Therefore  I  order  that  this  title  being  held  firm  and  valid,  be 
registered  in  the  corresponding  book,  and  delivered  to  the  party 
interested  for  his  safe  guard  and  other  purposes. 

Given  at  Monterey,  the  twentieth  of  August,  eighteen  hundred 
and  forty-two. 


Most  Excellent  Sir  : 

The  citizen  Jose  R.  Berreyesa,  resident  of  the  Town  of  San 
Jose  Guadalupe,  before  your  Excellency  as  may  be  most  formal 
Monterey,  Feb.  and  as  the  law  permits,  presents  himself  and  says  : 
secretary' of  the  That  it  is  now  ten  years  since  he  has  been  settled 
°?^iKd1)report'  and  established  with  his  numerous  family  in  this  his 
miciieltorena.  «  ranch0  "  of  "  San  Vicente,"  Canada  de  los  Capitan- 
cillos,  and  since  that  date  he  has  not  omitted  any  measure,  in 


792 

order  to  obtain  his  patent  (despacho)  or  a  title  which  may  ensure 
to  him  his  legitimate  ownership,  for  although  in  the  proceeding 
year  of  forty-two  he  received  a  title  issued  by  Don  B.  Alvarado, 
yet  as  it  was  not  in  conformity  with  the  "  espediente,"  which  he 
presented  to  the  superior  authority,  inasmuch  as  it  limited  me  to 
one  "  sitio  "  only,  while  from  the  first  my  petition  was  for  two 
"  sitios  "  for  horned  cattle  (ganado  mayor)  which  I  already  have 
in  occupation,  as  is  shown  and  verified  by  me,  with  the  number 
of  six  hundred  head  (reces);  for  this  cause  I  could  not  admit  the 
title  which  was  sent  to  me  at  that  time  ;  and  I  went  myself  in 
person  and  returned  it,  and  gave  it  into  the  hands  of  Dn.  Manuel 
Gimeno,  telling  him  the  reason  why  I  was  not  satisfied  with  it, 
and  as  the  capture  of  Monterey  happened  about  that  time,  I  re- 
tired and  have  not  been  able  to  proceed  again  in  this  matter  so 
urgent,  but  now  by  a  person  going  from  my  house,  I  avail  myself 
of  the  occasion  to  do  so  through  this  writing,  praying  your  Ex- 
cellency may  be  pleased  to  order  that  the  corresponding  decree 
(despacho)  be  made  out  and  remitted  to  me  in  these  terms,  from 
the  point  of  the  little  hill  (lomita)  towards  the  West,  which  is  in 
the  centre  of  the  valley  (canada)  to  the  plain  of  the  (arroyo  de 
las  Llagas)  rivulet  of  the  "  Llagas  v  among  the  mountains  (Sierra), 
and  with  all  the  hill  country  (lomesio)  which  pertains  to  said 
narrow  valley  of  the  "  Capitancillos,"  and  which  contains  in 
length  two  "  sitios/'  a  little  more  or  less,  and  in  breadth  it  has 
not  a  quarter  of  a  league  in  the  widest  part  even,  which  is  where 
I  have  my  house  and  subsistence. 

Therefore  I  humbly  pray  your  Excellency  to  be  pleased  favor- 
ably to  receive  this  my  petition,  for  which  I  will  ever  be  grateful. 

San  Vicente,  10th  February,  1844. 

JOSE  R.  BERREYESA. 


Mr.  Governor  : 

There  was  granted  to  the  applicant  one  "  sitio  de  ganado 
mayor  "  only,  as  is  seen  by  the  respective  "  expediente,"  and  if 
his  petition  is  to  have  a  greater  extent,  it  would  be  well  that  the 
Judge  of  the  Town  of  San  Jose  should  report,  with  citation  of  the 
adjacent  occupants,  especially  the  neighbor  Justo  Larios,  with 
whom  he  has  had  heretofore  a  dispute. 

I  do  not  recollect  that  the  party  interested  delivered  his  title 
(tomo),  neither  had  he  a  motive  for  leaving  me  that  document ; 
perhaps  he  does  not  truly  know  where  he  placed  it,  but  if  he 
should  need  a  testimony  of  the  grant  which  was  made  to  him,  he 
can  present  the  corresponding  stamped  paper. 


793 

The  superior  discernment  of  your  Excellency  will  determine 
what  may  be  proper. 

Monterey,  15th  February,  1844. 

MANL  JIMENO. 

Monterey,  February  16th,  1844. 

As  recommended  by  the  Secretary  of  my  office,  let  the  Judge 
report,  with  citation  of  the  adjoining  occupants,  and  so  soon  as 
that  is  disposed  of,  the  party  interested  will  return  with  the  res- 
pective paper  for  the  new  title. 

(Signed)  MICHELTORENA. 

In  fulfilment  of  the  disposition  of  the  Superior  Government  of 
the  sixteenth  of  February  of  the  present  year,  I  caused  Don 
Justo  Larios  as  an  occupant  of  the  adjoining  land  of  which  men- 
tion has  been  made  in  the  proceeding  instance,  to  appear  and 
making  him  acquainted  with  the  writing  presented  by  the  party 
interested,  he  alleged  that  in  order  to  give  his  opinion  it  was  ne- 
cessary that  he  should  think  over  it  and  go  before  the  Govern- 
ment, but  afterwards  he  gave  me  a  mutual  agreement,  and  it  is  in 
the  following  form  :  The  "  Angle  v  (corner,  rincon)  of  the  rivulet 
(arroyo)  known  by  the  name  of  los  Alamitos  which  faces  the  point 
of  the  hill  (loma),  shall  serve  for  boundary  to  both  parties,  and  to 
this  both  parties  are  agreed. 

This  is  all  that  I  can  at  the  time  inform  about  the  matter. 

Town  of  San  Jose,  May  22d,  1844. 

ANTONIO  MARIA  PICO. 


Most  Excellent  Governor: 

According  to  the  assent  of  Justo  Larios  adjoining,  there  ap- 
pears to  be  no  objectson  to  the  extending  a  new  title  to  him 
(the  applicant.) 

Monterey,  July  15th,  1844. 

(Signed)  *  MANUEL  JIMENO. 

Monterey,  July  23d,  1844. 
Let  it  be  issued. 

(Signed)  MICHELTORENA. 

Filed  Jan'y  30th,  1858. 

W.  H.  CHEVERS,  Dep.  Clerk. 


58 


794 


TRANSLATION  Oi  "R.  No.  1."     [See  Page  257.] 

Filed  3  o'clock,  P.  M.,  18  January,  1851. 

(Signed)  J.  T.  RICHARDSON, 

Recorder  S.  C.  C. 

"  The  above  is  written  in  pencil." 

(Signed)  S.  A.  CLARK, 

Recorder. 
By  Geo.  M.  Yoell, 

Deputy. 

Possession  of  the  Mine  of  Santa  Clara,  year  1845. 


Senor  Alcalde  of  1st  Nomination  of  the  Pueblo  of  San  Josi  de 
Guadalupe : 

GPjuune1?27a846JLSet  I)  Jose*  Castro,  Lieutenant  Colonel  of  Cavalry  in  the 
lrch?vidasufhe pard-  Mexican  Army,  a  native  of  this  Department,  before  your 
ty  reque8ts^Eco  notorious  justification  (notoria  justificacion)  appear  and 
say :  That  representing  at  present  the  person  and  rights  of  Captain 
D.  Andres  Castillero,  and  other  individuals  who  compose  the  company 
(I  being  one  of  the  shareholders)  in  the  Quicksilver  mine  which  the 
said  Senor  Castilleros  denounced  on  the  third  day  of  December  one 
thousand  eight  hundred  and  forty-five,  and  of  which  possession  was 
given  us  on  the  thirtieth  of  the  same  month  and  year,  in  strict  con- 
formance with  the  laws  of  mining,  title  sixth,  article  first,  which  grants 
to  discoverers  of  new  mines  three  pertenencias  contiguous  or  dis- 
connected of  the  dimensions  designated  by  law,  and  as  accords  with 
its  rights,  the  company  claims  now,  as  a  matter  of  course  (d&  h6y  por 
deducidas)  before  you,  the  three  pertenencias  in  continuation  of  the 
first,  it  being  proper  that  this  petition  should  be  attached  to  the  ex- 
pediente  of  the  denouncement,  so  that  it  may  remain  among  the  ar- 
chives and  appear  through  all  time. 

Not  going  on  paper  with  proper  seal,  because  there  is  none ;  I  pray 
that  I  may  receive  favor  and  justice. 

Santa  Clara,  June  27,  1846. 

JOSE  CASTRO. 


795 


TRANSLATION  OP  PETITION   OP  A.   CASTILLERO. 

Senor  Alcalde  of  1st  Nomination : 

Andres  Castillero,  Captain  of  permanent  Cavalry  and  at  present  a 
resident  of  this  Department,  before  your  notorious  justification  makes 
representation :  That  having  discovered  a  vein  of  silver  with  alloy 
of  gold  on  the  land  of  the  rancho  pertaining  to  Jose'  R.  Berreyesa, 
retired  Sergeant  of  the  presidial  company  of  San  Francisco,  and  wish- 
ing to  work  it  in  company,  I  request  that,  in  conformity  with  the  min- 
ing ordinances,  you  will  be  pleased  to  fix  up  notices  in  the  public 
places  of  the  Jurisdiction,  in  order  to  make  sure  of  my  right  when  the 
time  of  the  juridical  possession  may  arrive,  according  to  the  laws  on 
the  matter.  I  pray  you  to  provide  in  conformity,  in  which  I  will 
receive  favor  and  justice ;  admitting  this  on  common  paper,  there 
being  none  of  the  corresponding  stamp. 

Mission  of  Santa  Clara,  November  2 2d,  1845. 

ANDRES  CASTILLERO. 


TRANSLATION   OF  PETITION   OF  A.   CASTILLERO. 

Senor  Alcalde  of  1st  Nomination  of  the  Pueblo  of  San  Jose  Guada- 
lupe : 

I,  Andres  Castillero,  Captain  of  permanent  Cavalry,  before  your 
notorious  justification  appear  and  say :  That  on  opening  the  mineral, 
which  I  previously  denounced  in  this  Court,  I  have  taken  out  besides 
silver  with  alloy  of  gold,  liquid  quicksilver,  in  the  presence  of  some 
bystanders,  whom  I  may  be  able  to  summon  on  the  proper  occasion. 
And  considering  it  necessary  to  my  right,  I  have  to  request  of  you, 
that  united  to  the  document  of  denouncement,  this  representation  may 
be  recorded,  it  not  going  on  stamped  paper  because  there  is  none.  I 
pray  you  to  provide  in  conformity,  in  which  I  will  receive  favor  and 
justice 

Santa  Clara,  December  3d,  1845. 

ANDRES  CASTILLERO. 


TRANSLATION   OF  "ACT   OF 


There  not  being  found  in  the  Department  of  California  a  mining 
deputation,  and  this  being  the  only  time  since  the  settlement  of  Upper 


H 


96 


California  that  a  mine  has  been  worked  in  conformity  with  the  laws, 
and  there  being  likewise  no  professional  Judge  ("  Juez  de  Letras  ") 
in  the  second  District,  I,  the  Alcalde  of  1st  Nomination,  citizen  An- 
tonio Maria  Pico,  have  come  accompanied  by  two  assisting  witnesses, 
resolved  to  act  by  virtue  of  my  office,  for  want  of  a  Notary  Public, 
there  being  none,  in  order  to  give  juridical  possession  of  the  mine 
known  by  the  name  of  Santa  Clara,  in  this  Jurisdiction,  situated  on 
the  Rancho  of  the  Sergeant  Jose*  Reyes  Berreyesa,  because  the  time 
having  expired,  which  the  mining  ordinance  designates  for  the  citizen 
Andres  Castillero  to  show  his  right,  and  also  for  others  to  allege  a 
better  right  from  the  time  of  the  denouncement  to  this  date,  and  the 
said  mine  being  found  with  abundance  of  metals  discovered,  the  shaft 
made  according  to  the  rules  of  art,  and  the  elaboration  of  the  mine 
producing  abundance  of  liquid  quicksilver,  as  shown  by  the  specimens 
which  this  Court  has,  and  as  the  laws  now  in  force  so  strongly  recom- 
mend the  protection  of  an  article  so  necessary  for  the  amalgamation 
of  gold  and  silver  in  the  Republic,  I  have  concluded  to  grant  him 
three  thousand  varas  in  all  directions,  subject  to  that  which  the  gen- 
eral mining  ordinance  indicates ;  it  being  worked  in  company,  to 
which  I  certify,  the  witnesses  signing  with  me  ;  and  this  act  of  pos- 
session remaining  aggregated  to  the  rest  of  the  expediente,  which 
remains  deposited  in  the  archives  of  my  charge.  Not  being  done  on 
the  respective  stamped  paper,  there  being  none  as  prescribed  by  law. 

Juzgado  de  San  Jose'  Guadalupe,  December  one  thousand  eight 
hundred  and  forty-five. 

(Signed)  ANTONIO   MA.   PICO, 

of  assistance  of  assistance 

ANTONIO   SUftOL,  JOSE  NORIEGA. 

Recorded  (at  request  of  J.  Alex.  Forbes)  at  12  o'clock,  M.,  March 
16th  A.  D.  1855,  in  Book  G.  of  Deeds,  on  pages  484,  485  and  486, 
Records  of  the  County  of  Santa  Clara. 

(Signed)  S.   A.    CLARK, 

County  Recorder. 
By  F.  Lewis, 

Deputy. 

Filed  February  25th,  A.  D.  1853,  at  11  o'clock  A.  M. 

(Signed)  J.  M.  MURPHY, 

Recorder. 
By  S.  0.  Houghton, 

Deputy. 


797 

Recorder's  Office,  Santa  Clara  County,  ) 
California,  August  29th,  A.  D.  1857.       { 

I  hereby  certify  that  the  foregoing  on  pages  1,  2,  3,  4,  5,  6,  7,  8, 
9  and  10  of  this  contains  a  true,  correct  and  exact  traced  copy  of  an 
original  Document  now  on  file  in  this  office,  and  which  said  Document 
is  recorded  in  Book  G.  of  Deeds,  pages  484,  485  and  486. 


I  1      Witness  my  hand  and  official  seal,  at  office  in  the  City  of 

I  I  San  Jose,  this  the  day  and  year  last  above  written. 

(Signed)  S.   A.   CLARK, 

County  Recorder. 
By  Geo.  M.  Yoell, 

Deputy. 

Filed  January  30th,  1858. 

W.  H.  CHEVERS, 

Dep.  Clk. 


TRANSLATION  OF  "  R.  NO.  2."     [See  Page  311.] 

Expediente  of  the  denouncement,  possession,  and  partnership  of  the 
Quicksilver  Mine  called  Santa  Clara,  jurisdiction  of  San  JosS  de 
Guadalupe,  in  Upper  California. 

TRANSLATION  OF  ANDRES  CASTILLERO'S  PETITION. 

Senor  Alcalde  of  1st  Nomination  : 

Andres  Castiilero,  Captain  of  permanent  Cavalry,  and  at  present 
resident  in  this  Department,  before  your  notorious  justification  makes 
representation  ;  that  having  discovered  a  vein  of  silver  with  a  ley  of 
gold,  on  the  land  of  the  rancho  pertaining  to  Jose*  Reyes  Berreyesa, 
retired  Sergeant  of  the  presidial  company  of  San  Francisco,  and  wish- 
ing to  work  it  in  company,  I  request  that  in  conformity  with  the  ordi- 
nance on  mining,  you  will  be  pleased  to  fix  up  notices  in  public  places 
of  the  Jurisdiction,  in  order  to  make  sure  of  my  right  when  the  time 
of  the  juridical  possession  may  arrive  according  to  the  laws  on  the 
matter.  I  pray  you  to  provide  in  conformity,  in  which  I  will  receive 
favor  and  justice  ;  admitting  this  on  common  paper,  there  being  none 
of  the  corresponding  stamp. 

Pueblo  of  San  Jose  Guadalupe,  November  22d,  1845. 

ANDRES  CASTILLERO. 


798 

This  is  a  copy  to  which  I  refer,  signing  it  with  two  assisting  wit- 
nesses in  the  Pueblo  of  San  Jose*  Guadalupe,  on  the  13th  of  January 
1846. 

PEDRO  CHABOLLA. 
Of  assistance  :  Of  assistance  : 

P.  Sansevain.  Jose  Sunol. 


TRANSLATION  OF  ANDRES  CASTILLERO'S  PETITION. 

Senor  Alcalde  of  First  Nomination  : 

I,  Andres  Castillero,  Captain  of  permanent  Cavalry,  before  your 
well  known  justification  appear  and  say,  that  on  opening  the  mine 
which  I  previously  denounced  in  this  Court,  I  have  taken  out,  besides 
silver  with  a  ley  of  gold,  liquid  quicksilver,  in  the  presence  of  several 
bystanders,  whom  I  may  summon  on  the  proper  occasion.  And  con- 
sidering it  necessary  for  the  security  of  my  right  to  do  so,  I  have  to 
request  of  you,  that  uniting  this  representation  to  the  denouncement  it 
may  be  placed  on  file,  it  not  going  on  stamped  paper  because  there  is 
none.  I  pray  you  to  take  measures  to  this  effect,  in  which  I  will  re- 
ceive favor  and  grace. 

Santa  Clara,  December  3d,  1845. 

ANDRES  CASTILLERO. 

This  is  a  copy,  to  which  I  refer,  signing  it  with  the  witnesses  of  my 
assistance,  in  the  Pueblo  of  San  Jose  Guadalupe,  on  the  13th  of  Jan- 
uary, 1846. 

PEDRO  CHABOLLA. 
Of  assistance :  Of  assistance  : 

P.  Sansevain.  Jose  Sunol. 


TRANSLATION  OF  "ACT  OF  POSSESSION." 

There  being  no  deputation  on  mining  in  the  Department  of  Califor- 
nia, and  this  being  the  only  time  since  the  settlement  of  Upper  Califor- 
nia, that  a  mine  has  been  worked  in  conformity  with  the  laws,  and 
there  being  no  "  Juez  de  Letras,"  (professional  Judge)  in  the  second 
District,  I,  the  Alcalde  of  First  Nomination,  citizen  Antonio  Maria 
Pico,  accompanied  by  two  assisting  witnesses,  have  resolved  to  act  in 
virtue  of  my  office,  for  want  of  a  Notary  Public,  there  being  none,  for 
the  purpose  of  giving  juridical  possession  of  the  mine  known  by  the 


799 

name  of  Santa  Clara,  m  this  Jurisdiction,  situated  on  the  rancho  of  the 
retired  Sergeant  Jose'  Reyes  Berreyesa,  the  time  having  expired  which 
is  designated  in  the  ordinance  of  mining,  for  citizen  Don  Andres  Cas- 
tillero  to  show  his  right,  and  also  for  others  to  allege  a  better  right, 
between  the  time  of  denouncement  and  this  date,  and  the  mine  being 
found  with  abundance  of  metals  discovered,  the  shaft  made  according 
to  the  rules  of  art,  and  the  working  of  the  mine  producing  a  large 
quantity  of  liquid  quicksilver,  as  shown  by  the  specimens  which  this 
Court  has,  and  as  the  laws  now  in  force,  so  strongly  recommend  the 
protection  of  an  article  so  necessary  for  the  amalgamation  of  gold  and 
silver  in  the  Republic,  I  have  concluded  to  grant  him  three  thousand 
varas  in  all  directions,  subject  to  that  which  the  General  Mining  ordi- 
nance may  direct,  it  being  worked  in  company,  to  which  I  certify,  the 
witnesses  signing  with  me,  this  act  of  possession  remaining  aggregated 
to  the  rest  of  the  expediente,  which  remains  deposited  in  the  Archives 
under  my  charge  ;  not  being  done  on  the  corresponding  stamped  paper, 
there  being  none  as  prescribed  by  law. 

Court  of  San  Jose  Guadalupe,  December  30th,  1845. 

(Signed,)-  ANTONIO  MARIA  PICO. 

Of  assistance :  Of  assistance : 

Antonio  Sunol.  Jose  Noriega. 

I  have  received  of  Don  Andres  Castillero  the  sum  of  twenty-five 
dollars,  on  account  of  the  fees,  for  possession  of  the  quicksilver  mine 
which  is  in  the  jurisdiction  under  my  charge.  Court  House  of  San 
Jos^  Guadalupe,  December  30th,  1845. 

ANTONIO  MARIA  PICO. 


TRANSLATION  OF  "AGREEMENT  OF  PARTNERSHIP." 

Writing  of  partnership  which  Don  Andres  Castillero,  Captain  of 
permanent  cavalry  executes  with  the  Commanding  General  Don  Jose' 
Castro,  and  the  Messrs.  Secundino  Robles  and  Teodoro  Robles,  and  a 
voluntary  grant,  which  the  partners  make  perpetually  to  the  Rev. 
Father  Friar,  Jose'  Maria  del  Refugio  Suares  del  Real,  of  a  mine  of 
silver,  gold,  and  quicksilver,  on  the  rancho  of  Don  Josd  Reyes  Ber- 
reyesa, in  the  Jurisdiction  of  the  pueblo  of  San  Jose*  Guadalupe. 

Article  1.  Don  Andres  Castillero  conforming  in  all  respects  to 
the  ordinance  of  mining,  forms  a  regular  perpetual  partnership  with 
the  said  persons  in  this  form.  The  half  of  the  mine,  which  is  that  of 
which  he  can  dispose,  will  be  divided  into  three  parts,  in  this  manner : 
four  shares  to  Don  Jose*  Castro,  four  shares  to  the   Messrs.  Secundino 


800 

and  Teodoro  Robles,  and  the  other  four  shares,  to  the  Rev.  Father 
Jose*  Maria  R.  S.  del  Real,  as  a  perpetual  donation. 

Art.  2.  Neither  of  the  partners  can  sell  or  alienate  any  of  his 
shares,  so  that  he  who  may  do  so  shall  lose  his  right,  which  shall  revert 
to  the  other  partners. 

Art.  3.  The  expenses  shall  be  borne  in  proportion  to  the  shares,  a 
formal  account  being  kept  by  an  accountant,  who  will  be  paid  from  the 
common  fund. 

Art.  4.  That  prescribed  by  the  ordinance  of  mining  being  com- 
plied with  in  everything,  whatever  deficiency  may  arise  shall  be  de- 
cided by  the  parties  themselves. 

Art.  5.  Don  Andres  Castillero  will  direct  the  labors,  expenses 
and  works,  and  in  his  absence,  the  Rev.  Father  Friar  Jose  Maria  R. 
S.  del  Real. 

Art.  6.  Of  the  products,  no  larger  quantities  will  be  taken  out, 
than  are  necessary  for  the  arrangement  of  the  negotiation  until  the 
works  shall  be  regulated  ;  and  whatever  the  quantity  may  be,  it  must 
be  with  the  consent  of  all  the  partners,  until  the  negotiation  may  be 
arranged. 

Art.  7.  These  agreements  will  be  authenticated  by  the  Prefect  of 
the  Second  District  Don.  Manuel  Castro,  the  original  document  being 
deposited  in  the  archives  of  the  district  (partido)  a  copy  certified  by 
his  Honor  being  left  with  the  persons  interested. 

Mission  of  Santa  Clara,  November  2d,  1825. 

ANDRES  CASTILLERO, 
For  the  Commanding  General  DON  JOSE  CASTRO. 

ANDRES  CASTILLERO. 
Fr.  JOSE  MARIA  DEL  R.  S.  DEL  REAL. 

For  the   Senores  Secundino  Robles,  and  Teodoro  Robles. 

FRANCISCO  ARCE. 

This  is  a  copy  of  the  original  to  which  I  refer.  Santa  Clara, 
December  8th,  1845. 

MANUEL  CASTRO. 
Antonio  Maria  Pico. 


Court  of  the  Justice  of  the  Peace,  ) 

San  Jose  Guadalupe,  Upper  California.  J 

I  certify  in  due  form,  that  the  foregoing  is  a  faithful  copy  made  to 
the  letter  from  its  original  the  "  espediente  "  of  the  mine  of  Santa 
Clara  or  New  Almaden,  which  exists  in  the  Archives  under  my  charge, 


801 

to  which  I  refer.     And  in  testimony  thereof,  I  have   signed  it  this 
20th  day  of  January,  1848. 

JAMES  W.  WEEKES, 
Alcalde. 


British  Vice  Consulate  for  California,  ) 
San  Francisco.  j 

I  hereby  certify  that  the  signature  to  the  above  certificate  is  the 
true  and  proper  handwriting  of  the  person  it  represents ;  and  that  it  is 
worthy  of  all  faith  and  credit.  In  witness  whereof,  I  have  hereunto 
placed  my  hand  and  official  seal,  this  21st  day  of  January,  1848. 

.      JAMES  ALEXANDER  FORBES, 

Vice  Consul. 


I,  Jesus  Vegar,  Notary  Public,  hereby  certify  and  accredit  that 
the  last  preceding  signature  of  Don  James  Alexander  Forbes,  is  the 
signature  of  that  gentleman  which  he  is  accustomed  to  use,  it  being  so 
known  to  me,  when  I  knew  him  in  his  transit  through  this  city  on  his 
way  to  Upper  California,  by  various  acts  which  he  executed  in  the 
house  of  Barron,  Forbes  and  Company.  And  at  the  request  of  those 
gentlemen,  I  sign  and  execute  this  certificate  at  Tepic  on  the  15th 
day  of  March,  1850. 

JESUS  VEGAR. 


"We,  the  1st  Constitutional  Alcalde  and  the  Notary  Public  who  sign 
this,  certify  and  accredit  that  the  above  signature  is  the  one  which  the 
Notary  Don  Jesus  Vejar  is  accustomed  to  use  in  all  the  acts  which  are 
passed  before  him.  So  we  certify  to  it  at  Tepic,  on  the  15th  of  March, 
1850. 

LORETO  CORONA, 
EUSEBIO  FERNANDEZ. 


Consulate  of  the  United  States. 

I,  George  W.  P.  Bissell,  Consul  of  the  United  States  of  North 
America,  for  this  District,  hereby  certify  that  the  signatures  attached 


802 

to  the  foregoing  Document,  are  in  the  true  handwriting  of  the  sub- 
scribers, who  legally  hold  the  situations  therein  represented,  and  are 
worthy  of  all  faith  and  credit. 

In  testimony  whereof,  I  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  seal  of  office,  this 
first  day  of  December,  in  the  year  1858,  in  the  city  of  Tepic. 


seal  [  G.  W.  P.  PISSELL, 

U.  S.  Consul. 


TRANSLATION  OF  "R.  NO.  9."     [See  Page  286.] 

Court  of  the  Pueblo  op  San  Jose  of  Guadalupe. 

In  conformity  with  the  foregoing  petition,  I,  the  undersigned,  First 
Alcalde  of  this  jurisdiction,  with  two  witnesses  of  assistance  for  want 
of  a  Notary  Public,  wTent  out,  this  twenty-first  day  of  January,  one 
thousand  eight  hundred  and  forty-eight,  to  the  aforesaid  mine  of  New 
Almaden  ;  that  there  being  no  authorized  person  in  the  District,I  ap- 
pointed Clemente  Laquin,  a  practical  miner,  to  examine  the  condition 
of  said  mine,  which  was  found  worked  in  conformity  to  the  mining 
ordinance,  the  supports  being  firm,  its  designs  and  works  in  the  best 
order  and  free  from  gravel  or  other  impediment,  so  that  it  prevents  all 
danger  to  the  operators ;  and  to  preserve  the  mine  in  a  good  condition ; 
and  the  aforesaid  expert  having  made  the  surveys  and  other  necessary 
operations,  in  order  to  determine  the  course  and  lead  of  the  vein  to  its 
actual  depth,  declares  the  said  course  to  be  from  north-west  to  south- 
east, and  its  lead  to  be  north-east,  and  that  it  overruns  one  vara  with 
another  ;  that  is,  that  it  makes  with  the  horizon  an  angle  of  more  than 
forty-five  degrees,  giving  to  the  parties  interested  a  right  to  the  two 
hundred  varas  square,  according  to  Title  VIII.  Article  7  of  the  Ordi- 
nance. And  considering  that  this  mine  is  worked  in  Company,  I  con- 
cede likewise  the  right  which  is  asked  of  me  to  four  "  continuous  per- 
tenencias  "  over  the  course  of  the  said  vein,  in  the  designs  of  the  mine, 
conformable  to  the  Ordinance,  Title  XI.  Article  2.  I  concede  like- 
wise a  right  to  the  improvement  of  stakes  with  respect  to  the  variation 
of  the  course  of  the  vein,  according  to  Title  VIII.  Article  11,  of  the 
Ordinance,  and  this  in  the  following  order :  that  is  to  say,  from  the 
mouth  of  the  mine  fifty  varas  towards  the  south-west,  and  one  hundred 
♦and  fifty  varas  towards  the  N.  E.,  and  for  the  longitude  of  the  four 
pertenencias  one  hundred  varas  towards  the  south-east,  and  seven  hun- 
dred varas  towards  the  north-west  over  the  same  course  ;  of  the  vein, 
being  unalterable,  the  right  and  title  to  the  mine,  to  the  grant  of  land 


803 

conceded  in  the  original  act  of  possession.  These  duties  being  per- 
formed, I  ordered  the  said  expert  to  proceed  immediately  to  make  the 
said  surveys,  and  to  fix  on  the  extremes  of  the  four  pertenencias  and 
on  each  side  of  the  square  of  two  hundred  varas,  the  stakes  conforma- 
ble to  the  Ordinance.  All  of  which  was  done  in  my  presence,  and  of 
the  witnesses  of  assistance,  to  which  I  certify. 

JAMES  W.  WEEKES, 

Alcalde. 
Filed  January  30, 1858. 

W.  H.  GHEVERS, 

Clerk. 


TRANSLATION  OF  "  A.  P.  L. "     [See  Page  73.] 

Senor  Alcalde  op  First  Nomination: 

Andres  Castillero,  Captain  of  permanent  Cavalry  and  at  present 
resident  in  this  Department,  before  your  notorious  justification,  makes 
representation,  that  having  discovered  a  vein  of  silver,  with  alloy  of 
gold  on  the  land  of  the  rancho  pertaining  to  Jose"  R.  Berreyesa,  retired 
Sergeant  of  the  presidial  company  of  San  Francisco,  and  wishing  to 
work  it  in  company,  I  request  that  in  conformity  with  the  mining  ordi- 
nances, you  will  be  pleased  to  fix  up  notices  in  the  public  places  of  the 
jurisdiction,  in  order  to  make  sure  of  my  right,  when  the  time  of  the 
juridical  possession  may  arrive  according  to  the  laws  on  the  matter. 

I  pray  you  to  provide  in  conformity  in  which  I  will  receive  favor 
and  justice,  admitting  this  on  common  paper,  there  being  none  of  the 
corresponding  stamp. 

Mission  of  Santa  Clara,  November  22d,  1845. 

ANDRES  CASTILLERO. 


TRANSLATION  OF  PETITION  OF  ANDRES  CASTILLERO. 

Senor  Alcalde  of  First  Nomination  of  the  Pueblo  of  S\  Jose 
Guadalupe : 

I,  Andres  Castillero,  Captain  of  permanent  Cavalry,  before  your 
notorious  justification,  appear  and  say,  that  on  opening  the  mineral 
which  I  previously  denounced  in  this  Court,  I  have  taken  out  besides 
silver,  with  alloy  of  gold,  liquid  quicksilver,  in  the  presence  of  some 
bystanders,  whom  I  may  be  able  to  summon  on  the  proper  occasion. 


804 

And  considering  it  necessary  to  my  right,  I  have  to  request  of  you, 
that  united  to  the  document  of  denouncement,  this  representation  may 
be  recorded,  it  not  going  on  stamped  paper  because  there  is  none.  I 
pray  you  to  provide  in  conformity  in  which  I  will  receive  favor  and 
justice. 

Santa  Clara,  December  3d,  1845. 

ANDRES  CASTILLERO. 


TRANSLATION  OF  "  ACT  OF  POSSESSION." 

There  not  being  found  in  the  Department  of  California  a  mining  dep- 
utation, and  this  being  the  only  time  since  the  settlement  of  Upper 
California,  that  a  mine  has  been  worked  in  conformity  with  the  laws, 
and  there  being  likewise  no  professional  Judge  ("  Juez  de  Letras  ") 
in  the  Second  District,  I,  the  Alcalde  of  First  Nomination,  citizen 
Antonio  Maria  Pico,  have  come  accompanied  by  two  assisting  witnesses, 
resolved  to  act  by  virtue  of  my  office,  for  want  of  a  Notary  Public, 
there  being  cone,  in  order  to  give  juridical  possession  of  the  mine 
known  by  the  name  of  Santa  Clara  in  this  jurisdiction,  situated  on  the 
Rancho  of  the  Sergeant  Jose  Reyes  Berreyesa,  because  the  time  hav- 
ing expired,  which  the  mining  ordinance  designates  for  the  citizen  An- 
dres Castillero  to  show  his  right,  and  also  for  others  to  allege  a  better 
right  from  the  time  of  the  denouncement  to  this  date,  and  the  said 
mine  being  found  with  abundance  of  metal  discovered,  the  shaft  made 
according  to  the  rules  of  art,  and  the  elaboration  of  the  mine  produc- 
ing abundence  of  liquid  quicksilver,  as  shown  by  the  specimens  which 
this  Court  has,  and  as  the  laws  now  in  force  so  strongly  recommend 
the  protection  of  an  article  so  necessary  for  the  amalgamation  of  gold 
and  silver  in  the  Republic,  I  have  concluded  to  grant  him  three  thou- 
sand varas  in  all  directions,  subject  to  that  which  the  general  mining 
ordinance  indicates,  it  being  worked  in  company,  to  which  I  certify, 
the  witnesses  signing  with  me  ;  and  this  act  of  possession  remaining 
aggregated  to  the  rest  of  the  expediente,  which  remains  deposited  in 
the  archives  of  my  charge,  not  being  done  on  the  respective  stamped 
paper,  there  being  none  as  prescribed  by  law. 

Juzgado  de  San  Jose*  Guadalupe,  December  — ,  one  thousand  eight 
hundred  and  forty-five. 

(Signed.)  ANTONIO  MARIA  PICO. 

Of  Assistance  :  Of  Assistance  : 

Antonio  Sunol.  Jose  Noriega. 

Filed  January  30, 1858. 

W.  H.  CHEVERS, 

Deputy  Clerk. 


805 
TRANSLATION  OF  "  G.  M.  Y.  "     [See  Page  147.] 
Court  of  the  Pueblo  of  San  Jose  de  Guadalupe  : 

In  conformity  to  the  foregoing  petition,  I,  the  undersigned  First 
Alcalde  of  this  jurisdiction,  with  two  assisting  witnesses  for  want  of  a 
notary  Public,  went  this  the  twenty-first  of  January,  one  thousand  eight 
hundred  and  forty-eight,  to  the  said  mine  of  New  Almaden ;  that 
there  being  no  expert  mining  professor,  (facultativo)  I  appointed  Cle- 
mente  Laquin,  a  practical  miner,  to  examine  the  state  of  said  mine 
which  was  found  worked  in  conformity  to  the  mining  ordinance,  the 
sides  being  firm,  its  galleries  and  works  in  the  best  order,  and  free  from 
rubbish  or  other  impediment,  so  that  it  avoids  all  danger  to  the  work- 
men, and  preserves  the  mine  in  good  condition.  And  the  said  skillful 
person  having  made  the  measurements  and  other  operations  necessary 
to  determine  the  course  and  inclination  of  the  vein  to  its  present  depth, 
declares  said  course  to  be  from  north-west  to  south-east,  and  its  incli- 
nation to  be  north-east,  and  that  it  exceeds  vara  for  vaaa  ;  that  is,  that 
it  makes  with  the  horizon  an  angle  of  more  than  forty-five  degrees, 
giving  to  the  persons  interested  the  right  to  the  square  of  two  hundred 
varas  according  to  Title  VIII.  Article  7,  of  the  Ordinance.  And 
considering  that  this  mine  is  worked  in  company,  I  grant  also  the  right 
which  is  asked  me  to  four  consecutive  pertenencias  upon  the  angle  of 
the  said  vein  on  the  surface  of  the  mine  in  conformity  to  the  Ordinance 
Title  XI.  Article  2.  I  grant  also  the  right  to  the  change  of  the  stakes 
with  respect  to  the  variation  of  the  angle  of  the  vein  according  to  Title 
VIII.  Article  2,  of  the  Ordinance,  and  this  in  the  order  following : 
that  is  to  say,  from  the  mouth  of  the  mine  fifty  varas  towards  the 
south-west  and  one  hundred  and  fifty  varas  towards  the  north-east,  and 
for  the  length  of  the  four  pertenencias  one  hundred  varas  towards  the 
south-east,  and  seven  hundred  varas  towards  the  north-west  upon  the 
said  angle  of  the  vein,  the  right  and  title  of  the  mine  remaining  the 
same  by  the  favor  of  land  granted  in  the  original  act  of  possession. 
These  proceedings  being  concluded,  I  ordered  that  the  said  skilful  per- 
son should  proceed  immediately  to  draw  the  said  measures  and  to  fix 
at  the  extremities  of  the  four  pertenencias  and  at  each  side  of  the 
square  of  two  hundred  varas  the  stakes  in  conformity  to  the  Ordinance. 
All  which  was  done  in  my  presence  and  that  of  the  assisting  witnesses, 
to  which  I  certify. 

JAMES  W.  WEEKES, 

Alcalde. 

Filed  January  30,  1858. 

W.  H.  CHEVERS, 

Deputy  Clerk. 


806 
TRANSLATION  OF  "  J.  W.  W."     [See  Page  168.] 
To  the  Justice  op  the  Peace  : 

Alexander  Forbes  in  the  name  of  himself  and  his  associates,  owner 
of  the  mine  of  silver,  gold  and  quicksilver,  known  by  the  name  of 
Santa  Clara,  and  now  called  New  Almaden,  and  in  the  name  of  the 
Company  formed  for  the  working  and  furnishing  of  the  mine,  before 
you  as  may  be  most  proper  in  law,  represent  that  the  Mining  Ordi- 
nance, in  Title  IX.  Article  10,  provides  that  every  mine  ought  to  be 
visited  and  examined  by  skillful  persons  named  by  the  Judge,  for  the 
purpose  of  ascertaining  if  they  are  worked  in  conformity  to  said  Ordi- 
nance ;  and  the  subscriber  desiring  to  comply  with  the  laws,  prays  you 
as  the  competent  Judge  (for  want  of  the  tribunal  to  whom  it  belongs 
to  judge  in  the  matter)  that  you  will  be  pleased  to  go  with  your  assist- 
ing witnesses  to  the  said  mine  to  inspect  its  works  and  labors  now  be- 
ing carried  on,  in  conformity  to  the  Ordinance  upon  the  subject ;  as 
also  to  determine  the  direction  and  inclination  of  the  vein  of  the  said 
mine  to  its  present  depth,  for  the  purpose  of  reforming  and  correcting 
Csince  there  is  occasion  for  it,)  the  boundaries  of  the  former  act  of 
possession,  and  to  eorrect  also  such  other  mistake  as  may  occur  in  it, 
according  to  Title  8th,  Article  11,  of  the  same  Ordinance,  particularly 
to  decide  upon  the  increase  of  pertenencias  which  ought  to  be  possessed 
by  the  owners  of  the  said  mine,  and  its  contractor  (habilitador)  for 
himself  and  as  the  representative  of  the  former,  and  the  square  which 
corresponds  to  the  said  pertenencias  in  conformity  to  the  true  inclina- 
tion of  the  vein. 

Wherefore,  I  beseech  you  that  you  will  be  pleased  to  have  this  writ- 
ing carried  into  execution  in  the  terms  expressed,  and  when  the  pro- 
ceedings are  taken,  that  they  may  be  returned  to  me  for  the  just  pro- 
tection and  ends  which  may  suit  the  persons  interested,  you  being 
pleased  to  admit  this  on  common  paper,  from  the  total  want  of  sealed 
paper  in  this  department. 

Pueblo  of  San  Jose\  19th  of  Januay,  1848. 

Filed  January  30,  1858. 

W.  H.  CHEVERS, 

Deputy  Clerk. 


807 


EXHIBIT    NO.  1,  ANNEXED  TO  THE  DEPOSITION  OF 
CHAPMAN  YATES. 

Ynventario  que  manifiesta  los  Muebles  Libros  y  demas  Documentos 
pertenecientes  k  este  Juzgado ; 

Asaver 
50.  Legajos  de  Correspondencias  a  este  Juzgado 
2.  Legajos  con  191  oficios  del  ano  44. 

1.  idm  de  barios  papeles  Sueltos 

2.  idm  con  114  oficios  del  ano  45 
1.  idm  de  barios  Bandos 

1.  Copia  de  espediente  en  pretencion  del  Senalamiento  de  terreno  & 

este  Pueblo 
1.  Ynformacion  Sumaria  sobre  la  muerte  del  Yndigena  Juan. 
1.  Ydm.  sobre  la  muerte  del  Indigena  Ygnacio 
1.  Ydm.  sobre  el  insendio  de  la  Casa  de  Don  Jose*  Noriega. 
1.  Ydm  Contra  el  Estrangero  Juan  Copinger 
1.  Cuaderno  de  litis  entre  D.  Ygnacio  Peralta  y  Teodoro  Sicar. 
1.  Sumaria  Contra  Atanasio  Mendosa 

1.  Ydm.  Contra  los  Yndigenas  Basibio  Gerardo  &.  retirada  laqueja. 
1.  Causa  difinitiba  contra  Miguel  Benabides. 
1.  Espediente  promo vido  por  Don  Guillermo  Gulnac  por  cobro  que 

hace  a,  D.  Guillermo  Wilch. 
1.  Ynformacion  Sumaria  Contra  Teodoro  Arellanos. 
1.  Legajo  sobre  Elecciones  de  partido  del  ano  43. 
1.  Ydm  de  Elecciones  de  Alcalde  del  ano  43. 
1.  Sumaria  Contra  Juan  Jose*  Castro 
1.  idm  Contra  Antonio  Mesa. 
1.  idm.  Contra  Jose  Antonio  Higuera. 
1.  idm  Contra  Mariano  Hernandez 

1.  idem  Contra  Jorge  Farguson  por  queja  de  D.  Jose*  Martinez 
1.  idm."  Contra  Dolores  Valenzuela  por  escandalo 
1.  Ydm.  Contra  Gervacio  Soto  y  Nicolas  Valencia. 
1.  Posecion  de  la  Mina  de  Sta  Clara  a  D.  Andres  Castillero. 
1.  Lista  de  los  besinos  que  deven  a  el  Sacristan  Duarte. 
1.  Legajo  perteneciente  &  Jose  Duarte  y  Francisco  de  la  mancha. 
1.  idm  de  asuntos  bersados  entre  D.  Joaquin  Gomez  j  Pedro  Cha- 

volla. 

3.  Legajos  de  Cuentas  de  Sindicos. 

1.  Legajo  marcado  ano  44  de  papeles  Sueltos 

1.  idm  con  39  representaciones 

1  idm.  del  ano  45.  de  barios  papeles  Sueltos 

1.  Ynbentario  de  los  bienes  del  finado  Jose*  Higuera 


808 

1.  Documento  sobre  el  rancho  de  la  Laguna 

1.  Cuademo  borrador  de  actas  y  oficios  del  aiio  39. 

1.  idm  del  alio  39.  40  y  41. 

1.  idm  del  afio  40.  y  41. 

1.  idm  de  Juicios  berbales  del  ano  40.  41  y  43. 

1.  idm         idm     del  ano  39. 

1.  idm  de  conciliaciones  del  ano  39. 

1.  idm.  Ynformes  a  el  Govierno  de  39.  40.  y  41. 

1.  idm.  del  ano  43. 

1.  idm  del  aiio  42. 

3.  idm.  del  ano  44.  y  45. 

1.  padron  del  ano  40 

1.  Libro  legistros  de  fierros  y  Solares 

1.  Bumaria  contra  los  Reos  de  S.  Francisco  con  todo  y  Rios. 

2.  Constituciones  una  Espaiiola  y  otro  federal. 
1.  Ley  reglamentaria  del  aiio  37. 

1.  Ley  Colonial  del  aiio  29 

1.  acta  Constitutiba  del  ano  24 

1.  Bases  y  Leyes  Constitucionales  del  ano  36 

1.  idm.  Bases  organicas  del  ano  43. 

2.  Padrones  uno  de  la  Contra  Costa  y  otro  de  Sta.  Clara 

1.  Obligacion  echa  por  D  Juan  Alvires  4  fabor  de  D.  Carlos  Wibar 

2.  Sillas  biejas 
2.  Bancas 

1.  Candelero 

1.  Servisio  de  Escribia 

1.  Mesa  con  Carpeta  de  Puiio  Ordinario 

1.  Ligenas  para  Contar  papel 

2.  Cuchillas  biejos 
1.  tambor 

1.  fierro  de  herrar 

13.  Cuaderniyos  de  Papel  bianco 

2.  Cajas  de  obteses 

1.  punal  de  Ysidro  Sancez 

1.  Escoba 

1.  bara  de  Justicia 

1.  Lanza 

1.  Mastil  de  grillos 

1.  bando  en  una  tabla 

1.  Estante  para  guardar  el  Archivo  con  su  Have 

1.  Sepo  nuebo 

1  bandera  tricolor 

1.  Candado  grande  con  Have 


809 
Db  la  Sub-prefectura 

2.  Cuadernos  de  borradores  de  oficioa 
10.  Legajos  de  oficios 
4.  Candados  sin  Have. 

Nota. 

Quedan  En  monterrey  tres  pares  de  grillos  pertenecientes  &  este 
Juzgado 

1.  idm.  un  par  que  se  llevo  el  Chano  Cuando  se  fugo. 
1  idm.  que  se  lleva  un  Yndio. 
Pueblo  de  S  Jose"  En°.  2.  del  846. 

ANTONIO  MA.  PICO 

(Rubric.) 

Pueblo  de  S.  JoaS  (7.  En0  2.  1846. 
Recibi  todos  los  Documentos  que  el  presente  inventario  contiene 

PEDRO  CHABOLLA 

(Rubric.) 


EXHIBIT  No.   2,  ANNEXED    TO    THE  DEPOSITION  OF 
CHAPMAN  YATES. 

Prefectura  del 

2°  DlSTRITO. 

Con  esta  f ha  en  use-  de  las  facultades  que  me  confiere  la  ley  de  20 
de  Marzo  de  1837  he*  tenido  ha  bien  nombrar  en  ese  Pueblo  de 
San  Jose*  para  el  ano  entrante  de  1846,  pa  Juez  de  Paz  1°  proprieta- 
rio  k  Dn.  Dolores  Pacheco,  para  Juez  de  Paz  2°  proprietario  a  Dn. 
Pedro  Chavolla,  para  Juez  de  Paz  1°  Suplente  k  Dn.  Valentin  Higue- 
ra  y  para  Juez  de  Paz  2°  Suplente  &  Dn.  Jose  Fernandez. 

Y  lo  aviso  a  Y.  a  fin  de  que  el  dia  1°  de  Enero  proximo  vinidero  les 
veuba  &  dhos  Jueces  el  juramt0.  de  estilo,  pai  a  que  queden  en  posesion 
de  sus  encargos,  dando  a  V.  las  mas  cumplidas  gracios  por  los  servicios 
que  ha  prestado  durante  el  tiempo  de  su  encargo. 

Dios  y  Libertad,  Monterey  Dbre  15  de  1845. 

MANL  CASTRO 

(Rubric.) 

Sor  Alcalde  1°  del 
Pueblo  de  Sn  Jose' 
59 


810 

EXHIBIT  No.   3,  ANNEXED    TO    THE  DEPOSITION  OF 
CHAPMAN  YATES. 

British  Vice  Consulate  for  California 
Sta  Clara  14th  August  1847 
Sir 

I  have  received  information  from  the  person  in  charge  of  the 
Quicksilver  mine  of  Sta  Clara  that  two  persons  have  commenced  dig- 
ging a  pit  by  the  direction  of  Mr  G  Cook,  within  the  limits  of  the  ju- 
ridical possession  of  the  said  mine,  and  upon  remonstrating  with  them, 
they  have  refused  to  discontinue  their  operations. 

Permit  me  to  refer  you  to  the  documents  which  exist  in  your  office 
upon  which  was  founded  your  conviction  of  the  justice  of  your  decision 
in  relation  to  the  claim  of  Mr  Cook  in  March  last,  and  to  request  that 
you  will  be  pleased  to  adopt  such  measures  for  protecting  the  rights  of 
the  owners  of  the  said  mine  and  of  those  who  are  legally  interested  in 
the  same  as  you  may  deem  most  conducive  to  that  end. 
I  have  the  honor  to  be 
Sir 

Your  most  Obedient  Servant 

J  ALEX  FORBES 

V  Consul 
John  Burton  Esquire 
Justice  of  Peace 

Pueblo  de  San  Jose* 


EXHIBIT  No.  4,    ANNEXED   TO    THE    DEPOSITION  OF 

CHAPMAN  YATES. 

• 

Inventory — City  Property. 

Copy. 

Ynbentario  formado  de  los  muebles  y  Documentos  que  ecisten  en  este 
archibo  y  se  entrega  el  nuebo  Juez.  Dn.  Juan  Boston  el  dia  10.  de 
Nbre  de  1846.  Primeramte. 

1.  Cuaderno  manuscrito  de  la  Ley  reglamentaria  en  este  Jusgado. 
1.  Cuaderno  de  la  Acta  Constitutiba. 
1.  Cuaderno  de  las  Vases  de  tamballa. 
1.  Cuaderno  de  forro  asul  de  la  Luz  Federal 
1.  Cuaderno  de  conciliaciones  que  se  ha  llevado  por  este  Jusgado  en 
este  aiio. 


811 

1.  Libro  de  Registros  de  fierros  y  solares. 

1.  Cuademo  de  la  constitucion  Espaiiola. 

1.  Ley  colonial  en  dos  Pliegos  de  papel  manscrita. 

1.  Causa  pendte  contra  Ysidro  Sanchez  y  Franco  Soto. 

1.  Legajo  de  Bandos  del  aiio  45. 

1.  idm.  de  Bandos.  de  45.  46  y  40.  con  respecto.  a  elecciones  y  or- 

denes  del  Gov110  y  Alcaldes. 
1.  Cuaderno  de  la  Constitucion  Federal. 
1.  Legajo  de  Papeles  Sueltos  de  44.  45  y  46.  con  respecto  a  Cuen- 

tas  particulares 
1.  Causa  principiada  por  el  individuo  Atenogenes  Barragan. 
1.  Cuaderno  de  Borradores  del  ano  42. 
1.  Legajo  de  la  informacion  del  Rancho  de  Alvirez  del  aiio  45. 

1.  Espediente  promovido  por  el  fondo  legal  del  terreno  pretendido 

por  este  Jusgado  pa  esta  Poblacion  desde  el  ano  de  18 

2.  Cuadernos  de  Borradores  de  oficios  dirigidos  al  Govierno  y  barios 

sujetos  del  ano  46. 

1.  Cuaderno  con  respecto  a  informaciones  de  terrenos.  del  presente 

aiio  de  46. 
5.  Cuadernos.  que  contienen  del  espediente  del  terrenos  de  Alvirez. 
y  de  Barradores  des  de  el  ano  40  a  45. 
15.  Cuadernos  de  oficios  pr  Borradores  en  este  legajo  esta  la  causa 
pendiente  de  las  cridudas  al  Capn  Liverme. 

2.  Legajos  medianos  de  cuentas  de  sindicos  de  este  ano  39.  y  41.  y 

1.  Padron  de  la  Contra  Costa  del  ano  45. 
18.  Cuadernos  en  sumarias  concluidas  que  sirban  de  modelos  en  este 
Jusgado. 
1.  Legajo  mediano  con  respecto  a  elecciones  de  Diputados  el  Con- 

greso. 
7.  Carpetas  de  oficios.  de  los  anos  41.  42  y  43. 
29.  Representaciones  de  los  anos  de  41.  42  y  43. 
20.  oficios  del  Jusgado  de  la  Villa  de  41  y  42. 
1.  Documto  sobre  la  Eleccion  de  partido  de  1°  y  2°  Alcalde  del  ano 

de  1843. 
1  Documto  sobre  la  Eleccion  de  Partido  en  el  ano  de  1843. 
1.  Asunto  Benado  con  Dn  Joaq11.  Gomez  y  Pedro  Chabolla, 
1.  Asunto  de  las  Declaraciones  de  Jose  Duarte  del  aiio  42. 
1.  Asunto  de  las  Cuentas  de  Mariano  Duarte. 
101.  Oficios  en  contestaciones  del  Gov"0  del  aiio  46.  y  el  acta  del  Su- 
eldo  de  Secretario 

3.  Sumarias  pendientes  del  presente  aiio  46. 

1.  Ynbentario  de  los  Vienes  que  recivio  de  los  erederos  del  finado. 

Jose  Higuera.  Fulgencio  Higuera,  como  Albacea. 
1.  Legajo  de  papeles  Sueltos.  de  barios  asuntos 
107.  Oficios  del  ano  43. 


812 

7.  Carpetas  en  oficios  desde  el  ano  de  1800  hasta  836. 
47.  Legajos  de  los  anos  pasados  en  oficios  y  eontestaciones  del  Gov110. 
39.  Representaciones  en  legajo  del  ano  45. 

4.  Ynbentarios  de  este  Archivo  de  los  anos  pasados.  con  uno  del 
finado  Prado  Mesa. 

MUEBLES  DEL  JuSGADO. 

1.  Mesa  de  escrivir  con  su  carpeta  asul. 

1.  Escoba. 

1.  Armario  del  Archibo 

1.  Candelero.  de  oja  de  lata 

1  Servicio  de  escrivir  de  Brome,  que  son  3.  piezas. 
1  Candado.  y  Llabe  del  Jusgado 

2.  Candados  y  una  Chapa  Chica  sin  llabes. 
1.  Par  tigeras  Viejas 

1.  Baston.  y  Vara  de  Justicia  encarguillada  con  plata. 
Pueblo  de  S.  Jose.  G.  Nbre  10  de  1846. 

Septr.  20.  1847.  3  new  register  book.  1  Slate.  1  Clock  belonging 
to  Gov*.  U  S.  Flag.  1  Map  of  Pueblo  lands.  2.  Maps  of  the  Town  plot. 

State  op  California,     ) 
County  of  Santa  Clara,  >  ss. 
City  of  San  Jose.       ) 

I  hereby  certify  that  the  foregoing  on  pages.  1.  2.  3  and  4  of  this, 
contains  a  true,  and  correct  copy  of  an  original  Document  now  on  file 
in  the  Archives  of  the  City  of  San  Jose,  County  and  State  aforesaid, 
and  at  this  present  time  under  my  charge. 

!■ .  n      Witness  my  hand  and  the  Seal  of  the  aforesaid  City,  here- 
seal  (  to  affixed  this  29th  day  of  August  A.  D.  1857. 
>  CHAPMAN  YATES 

City  Clerk. 


Exhibit  No.  5,  Annexed  to  the  Deposition  of  Chapman 

Yates. 

The  following  communications  from  the  Mayor  and  Wm.  F.  Lovett 
were  ordered  transcribed  on  the  minutes,  and  the  originals  placed  on 
file: 

To  the  Honorable  Common  Council  of  the  City  of  San  Jose — Gen- 
tlemen : 
In  accordance  with  a  resolution  of  the  Common  Council  I  called 

upon  Mr.  White,  former  Alcalde,  and  demanded  of  him  whatever 


813 

papers  and  public  documents  he  might  have  pertaining  to  the  lands  of 
the  Pueblo  de  San  Jose.  The  only  papers  of  the  kind  which  he  had 
are  papers  relating  to  sureties,  and  which  are  herewith  transmitted  to 
your  honorable  body. 

In  accordance  with  another  resolution  I  have  employed  Mr.  F. 
Lovett,  who  is  well  acquainted  with  the  Spanish  language,  to  examine 
and  arrange  all  the  Publick  Documents  and  papers  in  the  City  Ar- 
chives. Under  my  supervision,  he  has  made  a  thorough  examination, 
and  has  well  arranged  the  papers  there  found,  as  will  be  shown  by  the 
accompanying  report.  I  regret  that  the  search  did  not  exhibit  any 
thing  which  will  throw  much  light  upon  the  Pueblo  title  *or  grants 
made  within  its  limits  ;  except  the  field  notes  of  the  survey  of  the  500 
acre  tracts  and  the  notes  of  Lyman  and  a  few  deeds  and  grants,  but 
little  has  been  discovered.  And  I  regret  to  say  that  many  of  the 
books  and  papers  have  been  cut  and  mutilated,  and  no  doubt  much 
matter  of  great  importance  has  been  removed  or  destroyed  in  years 
gone  by,  whether  through  design  or  carelessness  I  cannot  say.  Yet 
it  is  certain  that  at  some  time  past  important  papers  have  been  re- 
moved or  destroyed,  leaving  now  but  little  of  much  consequence. 

THOS.  WHITE, 
Mayor  of  San  Jose. 

To  the  Hon.  Thomas  White,  Mayor  of  the  City  of  San  Jose  : 

Sir  :  In  accordance  with  your  instructions  I  have  diligently  exam- 
ined the  Archives  of  this  city  now  in  the  Mayor's  Office,  and  after  a 
careful  examination,  I  am  able  to  make  you  the  following  report.  The 
papers  are  all  arranged  in  alphabetical  order  and  are  as  follows : 

A — Papers  in  case  of  Antonio  Valencia  for  murder  ;  Old  election 
returns ;  Papers  in  the  Estate  of  Graves  Bernal  and  Jones  Horse ; 
Charles  White's  Docket ;  Papers  in  case  of  Walkinshaw  vs.  Forbes  ; 
Papers  in  case  of  B.  H.  Thompson  ;  Papers  in  case  of  Ord  ;  Official 
papers  of  perfectura  for  1842  ;  Census  for  1845  ;  Journal  of  Town 
Council  1849  ;  Papers  relating  to  Naglee  and  Neleigh,  1848  ;  Notes 
and  declarations  of  Geo.  W.  Bellamy,  Oct.  27, 1847  ;  Alcalde's  Cor- 
respondence, 1840  ;  Official  Letters  of  Charles  White  ;  Papers  relating 
to  a  Quicksilver  Mine  of  Alvardo ;  Plan  of  San  Jose  Cemetery  ; 
Memorial  presented  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  and  Exterior  Re- 
lations, 1829  ;  Alcalde's  Letters  ;  Petty  cases  before  Alcalde's  Courts  ; 
Loose  and  Miscellaneous  papers  (of  no  value  ;)  Official  Documents  of 
Perfectura  for  1841,  1842  and  1843  ;  Alcalde's  Correspondence  of 
San  Franciscita  ;  Correspondence  of  Priests  of  Santa  Clara ;  Testimony 
of  Duart  and  de  La  Mancha. 

B — Alcalde  Dimick's  Docket ;  Election  of  Alcalde  1843  ;  Miscel- 
laneous Papers ;  British  Consuls  Letters  ;  Papers  in  case  of  Territory 
of  California  vs.  Juan  Gonsales  ;  Papers  in  case  of  Territory  of  Cali- 


814 

fornia  vs.  Chavolla ;  Papers  in  case  of  Haun  vs.  Bellamy ;  Alcalde's 
Letters  from  Monterey  ;  Part  of  Testimony  in  case  of  Chavolla  ;  Let- 
ter from  Padre  Real ;  Auxiliary  Alcalde  de  Santa  Clara ;  Official 
Documents  of  the  Jusgado  de  Pueblo  41,  42,  43  ;  Letters  and  loose 
papers  from  Gov.  Bonica  and  Aguillo  from  1777  to  1815  ;  Of  money 
paid  and  received  for  the  year  1846  ;  Petitions  for  Land  ;  Testimony 
before  the  Alcalde ;  Election  1843 ;  Government  Correspondence 
1843  ;  Papers  of  Jusgado  and  Census  of  San  Francisco  41,  42,  43  ; 
Military  Correspondence  41,  42,  43  ;  Expenses  of  Jusgado  de  1846  ; 
Election  for  Delegates  to  the  meeting  of  the  different  Pueblos  of 
California: 

C — Loose  Papers  year  1841 ;  Complaints  before  Alcaldes'  41,  42, 
43  ;  Miscellaneous  Papers  in  the  case  of  Robelus  vs.  Campbell ;  Papers 
in  the  Court  of  First  Instance  ;  Printed  copy  of  Acts  of  First  Legis- 
lature. 

D — Thirteen  packages  of  Alcaldes'  Correspondence  from  1795  to 
1827. 

E — Eleven  packages  of  Alcaldes'  Correspondence  from  1828  to 
1833. 

F — Fifteen  packages  of  Alcaldes'  Correspondence  from  1834  to 
1341. 

G — Five  packages  of  Alcaldes'  Correspondence  from  1842  to  1846  ; 
and  one  package  of  Alcaldes'  old  Dockets. 

H — Papers  relating  to  the  Pueblo  Lands  consisting  of  the  field 
notes  of  J.  D.  Hutton,  &c. ;  Grants  and  Deeds  ;  Notes  of  Lyman. 

I  would  also  state  that  there  are  but  few  or  no  papers  in  the  Ar- 
chives for  the  years  1844,  1845,  1846,  except  such  as  are  mutilated, 
and  torn  and  cut. 

The  different  maps  of  the  city  are  now  in  the  hands  of  Thomas 
White,  Surveyer. 

I  remain  yours,  &c, 

WM.  E.  LOVETT. 

City  of  San  Jose,  March  3d,  1852. 

An  important  Document  accompanying  the  above  communications 
relating  to  suerte  lands  was  ordered  to  be  carefully  filed. 


City  of  San  Jose,  County  of  Santa  Clara, 
and  State  of  California. 


I  hereby  certify  that  the  above  and  foregoing  on  pages  1,  2,  3,  4, 
and  5,  inclusive,  is  a  full,  true  and  correct  copy  from  a  book  in  the 
Archives  of  said  City,  in  which  is  recorded  the  minutes  or  proceed- 
ings of  the  Common  Council  from  the  year  1850  to  the  year  1855, 
and  that  the  same  is  now  under  my  charge. 


815 

In  testimony  whereof,  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  affixed  the 
seal  of  said  City  this  24th  day  of  September,  1857. 

j  sial  I  CHAPMAN  YATES, 

< )  City  Clerk. 


Exhibit  No.  6,  Annexed  :to   the  Deposition  of  Chapman 

Yates. 

G.   C.  Cook,  ) 

vs.  > 

James  Alex.  Forbes.  ) 

On  complaint  of  plaintiff  that  Andreas  Castillero,  James  Alex. 
Forbes,  Jose*  Maria  del  Ecul,  Jose*  Castro,  Secundino  Robles,  and 
Chota,  alias  Theodore  Robles,  were  to  work  on  his  land  contrary  to 
law,  and  prayed  that  they  be  removed.  A  summons  was  issued  bear- 
ing date  March  i7th,  1847,  returnable  on  Friday  next,  which  were 
served  and  returned  according  to  law.  The  parties  having  appeared 
the  case  is  continued  until  the  mine  can  be  surveyed.  Two  men  were 
sent  to  the  mines  to  measure  and  report  thereon,  who  went  and  re- 
turned their  report.  Two  notifications  were  issued  to  said  commis- 
sioners who  charge  the  sum  of  five  dollars  for  two  witnesses,  and  the 
same  for  the  Secretary  who  went  with  them.  After  thus  much  the 
case  stands  still  until  further  orders  at  the  cost  of  plaintiff.  Costs 
taxed  at  twenty-seven  dollars  and  seventy-five  cents.  Clerks  for 
surveying  fees,  $7   each  ;   Witnesses,  $5  each. 

Capt.  Fisher  and  Isaac  Branham,  witnesses. 

Jose*  Fernandez,  Clerk. 

Belden  became  responsible  for  costs  April  6th,  1847. 

Justices'  Fees,  $3  50  ;  Clerk's,  $3  25 ;  Sheriff's,  $4. 

Costs  paid  in  full  April  7th,  1847. 

Clerk's  Office,  City  of  San  Jose,  County  of  Santa  ) 
Clara,  and  State  of  California.  j 

I  hereby  certify  that  the  foregoing  is  a  true  copy  of  a  record  now 
on  file  in  the  public  Archives  of  the  City  of  San  Jose\ 

Given  under  my  hand  and  seal  of  said  City,  September  31st,  A.  D. 

1857. 

(  M —  j  CHAPMAN  YATES, 

)  seal  (  City  Clerk. 


816 

Exhibit  No.  7,  Annexed  to  the  Deposition  of  Chapman  Yates. 

NOTICE. 

Aviso  al  Publico. 

El  C.  Dolores  Pacheco,  Jues  de  la  Nominacion  del  Pueblo  de  S. 
Jose*  Gpe. 

El  Ciudadano  Lorenzo  Pinedo  se  ha  presentado  en  este  Jusgado 
denunciando  una  mina  de  Plata  con  ley  de  oro  y  asogue  cituada  en 
el  paraje  de  Capitaneillos  Rancho  conosido  de  Justo  Larios,  en  esta 
Jurisdiccion  y  cumpliendo  con  lo  que  previene  la  ordenanza  de  mi- 
neria,  mando  se  publique  para  que  pasandos  los  cuarenta  dias  sino 
uviese  quien  alegue  mejor  dro  se  le  de  la  posecion  Juridica. 

Pueblo  S.  Jose,  Junio  7  de  1846. 

DOLORES  PACHECO. 

State  of  California,  County  of  Santa  Clara,  ) 

City  of  San  Jose.  J  ss* 

I  hereby  certify  that  the  foregoing  contains  a  true  and  correct  copy 
of  an  original  document  now  on  file  in  the  archives  of  the  City  of  San 
Jos6*,  County  and  State  aforesaid,  and  at  this  present  time  under  my 
charge. 

Witness  my  hand,  with  the  seal  of  the  aforesaid  city  hereunto  af- 
fixed, this  31st  day  of  August,  A.D.  1857. 

j  seal  |  CHAPMAN  YATES, 

( >  City  Clerk. 

Filed  Nov.  21st,  1857. 

J.  EDGAR  GRYMES, 

Deputy. 


# 

Translation  of  "  Exhibit  No.  7,"  Annexed  to  the  Deposition 
of  Chapman  Yates. 

Notice  to  the  Public. 

The  citizen   Dolores  Pacheco,  Judge  of  the  1st.  Nomination  of  the 
Pueblo  of  San  Jose*,  Guadalupe. 

Whereas  the  citizen  Lorenzo  Pinedo,  has  presented  himself  in  this 
court,  denouncing  a  silver  mine,  with  alloy  of  gold  and  quicksilver, 
situated  on  the  Capitaneillos  Rancho,  known  as  that  of  Justo  Larios, 


817 

in  this  jurisdiction,  and  complying  with  the  provisions  of  the  mining 
ordinance,  I  order  the  same  to  be  published,  in  order  that  at  the  end 
of  forty  days,  should  there  be  no  one  who  can  allege  a  better  right 
thereto,  the  Juridical  possession  thereof  be  given  to  him. 
Pueblo  of  San  Josd,  June  7th,  1846. 

DOLORES  PACHECO. 


Exhibit  No.  8,  Annexed  to  the  Deposition  of  Chapman  Yates. 

NOTICE. 

Aviso  al  Publico. 

El  Ciudadano  Dolores  Pacheco,  Juez  de  la.  Nomin11.  del  Pueblo  de 
S.  Jose  Gpe. 

El  C.  Bueno  Balencia,  se  ha  presentado  en  heste  Jusgado  denun- 
ciando  una  mina  cituada  en  el  Rancho  de  Dn.  Jose  de  Jesus  Vallejo, 
Jurisd  de  la  Contra  Costa  al  Nto  y  cumpliendo  con  lo  que  previene 
la  ordenanza  de  mineria  mande  se  publique  para  que  pasados  los  cuar- 
enta  dias  sino  uviese  quien  alegue  mayor  dro.  selede  la  posecion  Ju- 
ridica 

Pueblo  de  San  Jose',  Gpe.,  Abl.  24,  de  1846. 

DOLORES  PACHECO. 
Araneco  Altamerano. 

State  of  California,  County  of  Santa  Clara, 
City  of  San  Jose. 

I  hereby  certify  that  the  foregoing  is  a  true  and  correct  copy  of  an 
original  document  now  on  file  in  the  archives  of  the  City  of  San  Jose, 
County  and  State  aforesaid,  and  at  this  present  time  under  my  charge. 

Witness  my  hand  with  the  seal  of  the  aforesaid  City  hereto  affixed, 
this  the  31st  day  of  August,  A.D.  1857. 

|  seal  |  CHAPMAN  YATES, 

< '  City  Clerk. 


818 

Translation  of  "  Exhibit  No.  8,"  Annexed  to  the  Deposition 
of  Chapman  Yates. 

Notice  to  the  Public. 

The  citizen  Dolores  Pacheco,  Judge  of  1st  Nomination  of  the  Pueblo 
of  San  Jose  Guadalupe. 

Whereas  the  citizen  Bruno  Balencia,  has  presented  himself  in  this 
court,  denouncing  a  mine  situated  on  the  Ranch  of  Don  Jose'  de  Jesus 
Vallejo,  Jurisdiction  of  Obntra  Costa  north,  and  complying  with  the 
provisions  of  the  mining  ordinance  I  order  the  same  to  be  published, 
so  that  at  the  expiration  of  forty  days,  should  there  be  no  one  who  can 
allege  a  better  right  thereto,  the  juridical  possession  thereof  be  given 
to  him. 

Pueblo  of  San  Jose*  Gpe.,  Apl.  24, 1846. 

DOLORES  PACHECO. 


Exhibit  No.  9,  Annexed  to  the  Deposition  of  Chapman  Yates. 

NOTICE. 

Aviso  al  PMico. 

El  Ciudn.  Dolores  Pacheco,  Alcalde  de  1*.  Nominacion  del  Pueblo  de 
S.  Jose*  Guadalupe. 

El  C.  Pedro  Hernandez  se  ha  presentado  en  este  Jusgado  denun- 
ciando  una  mina  cituado  en  el  Rancho  del  ojo  de  la  Coche  de  esta 
Jurisd".  y  cumpliendo  con  lo  que  previene  la  ordenanza  de  mineria, 
mando  se  pregone  publicamte  pa  que  pasados  los  cuarenta  dias  sino 
huviese  quien  alegue  mejor  derecho  se  la  de  la  posecion  Juridica. 

Pueblo  de  S.  Jose*  Gpe.,  Mro.  2,  de  1846. 

DOLORES  PACHECO. 

State  of  California,  County  of  Santa  Clara, 
City  of  San  Jose. 

I  hereby  certify,  that  the  foregoing  is  a  true  and  correct  copy  of 
an  original  cocument  now  on  file  in  the  archives  of  the  City  of  San 
Josd,  County  and  State  aforesaid,  and  at  this  present  time  under  my 
charge. 


RETURN      J\g 
T0-^>    -*« 

M 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 


DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 

SEtfTONILL 

Km)    I  0  1998 

U.  C.  BERKELEY 

MAR  g  9  2000 

Ifiniv   "•  *"■■ 

FORM  NO.  DD  19 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  BERKELEY 
BERKELEY,  CA  94720 


u      /  I  **o  7 


